Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKERin the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Ramsgate Corporation Bill [Lords].

Shepton Mallet Waterworks Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.

Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No 9) Bill.

Bills to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

London County Council (Money) Bill,

As amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

South Wales Electrical Power Distribution Company Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Great Northern Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL,

"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Chester, the Orsett Joint Hospital Board, Wallasey, and Wolverhampton," presented by Sir ALFRED MOND; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 129.]

NORFOLK FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1907, extending and modifying the Norfolk Fisheries Provisional Order, 1912," presented by Sir ARTHUR BOSCAWEN; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 130]

TOWY FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1907, relating to the River Towy and other waters," presented by Sir ARTHUR BOSCAWEN; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 131.]

TAW AND TORRIDGE FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1907, relating to the Rivers Taw and Torridge and other waters," presented by Sir ARTHUR BOSCAWEN; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 132.]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

CIVIL SERVICE.

Colonel Sir C. YATE: 1.
asked the Under Secretary of State for India, considering that, under Schedule 8 of the Government of Ireland Act of 1920, officers in the service of the Crown allowed to retire owing to the change in the conditions of service are allowed to count from five to ten years' service towards
the calculation of pension, in addition to the period actually served, for what reason officers of the imperial services of India, allowed to retire owing to the change consequent on the Government of India Act, 1919, are not allowed to count any extra service in the calculation of proportionate pensions; and whether the same concession will now be granted to officers in the Indian services as has been granted to officers of the Crown in Ireland?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): The circumstances and conditions provided for by the Government of Ireland Act are not identical with those of Indian officers, and the Secretary of State is not prepared to revise the scales of pension offered to the latter after full deliberation, which are, in fact, more liberal than a strict proportion of length of service would provide.

Sir C. YATE: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the stipulation in the Government of India Resolution of 8th November, 1921, fixing the 31st March, 1924, as the last date up to which application from British members of the Indian services for permission to retire upon proportionate pensions in consequence of the changes under the Government of India Act, 1919, will be received by the local governments in India, is still to be enforced, or whether it will now be withdrawn?

Sir J. D. REES: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is intended to modify the Indian Civil Service special retirement terms so as to render the period allowed to members for deciding whether or not they wish to retire on proportionate pensions coterminous with the time fixed for the probation of the new régime in India?

Earl WINTERTON: I am still unable to add anything to the reply I gave, to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks on this matter on 12th April, of which I will send the hon. Members a copy. The Secretary of State has again telegraphed to the Government of India asking them to expedite their recommendations.

Sir C. YATE: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the present unwillingness of British candidates to compete for the Indian Civil
Services and of the power taken in Section 96 (b) (2) of the Government of India Act to authorise the Indian Legislatures to make laws regulating the conditions of service in the Civil Services of India, the Secretary of State will alter the covenant of the Indian Civil Services so that it shall include all the more important conditions of service including time scale, pay, leave, and pension rules?

Earl WINTERTON: I cannot accept as established by such facts and experience as are at present available the first ground for my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion. As regards the second, there is no intention of delegating to Indian Legislatures power to regulate the conditions of service of the All-India services the members of which are appointed by the Secretary of State in Council. The Secretary of State therefore sees no sufficient reason for adopting the suggestion, which would present great technical difficulties.

Sir J. D. REES: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is intended to give any further security than at present exists to that half of a retiring Indian civil servant's pension which is secured upon the revenues of India.

Earl WINTERTON: I am not clear what distinction the hon. Baronet intends to draw. Though Indian civil servants were required, until recently, to contribute towards their annuity, the whole of the annuity payable to them is a statutory charge on Indian revenues. On the general question I invite the hon. Baronet's attention to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the published dispatch of the 9th February from the Secretary of State's predecessor to the Government of India, of which I will send him a copy.

Sir J. D. REES: Do these rules as regards the pension being a charge on the revenues of India apply to all civil servants?

Earl WINTERTON: Perhaps my hon. Friend would give notice of that question?

Sir J. D. REES: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he can give the House any information regarding the extent to which the Indian Civil Service has been Indianised in its personnel?

Earl WINTERTON: The Government of India reported that in 1921 the proportion of Indians was 13 per cent., since then 38 Indians have been appointed, which would increase the proportion to about 16 per cent.

Sir W. DAVISON: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he received a cable from the Indian Civil Service Central Association at the beginning of April requesting early orders on memorials submitted about two years ago, especially regarding pensions, passages, and allowances; and what action has been taken in the matter?

Earl WINTERTON: Yes, Sir. The Government of India have been authorised to inform the memorialists, through the respective local governments, of the decisions taken on all the matters that have been finally settled. As regards outstanding matters, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made in another place by the Secretary of State on 11th April, to which I am not at present in a position to add anything.

Sir W. DAVISON: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what steps have been taken to carry out the expressed intention to compensate the Indian Civil Service for the loss of prestige and prospects stated in the Montagu-Chelmsford Report to be inherent in the reforms; and whether, seeing that the only steps which have so far been taken amount merely to a small revision of pay and that such revision works out to an average of only 8 per cent. increase, and in many cases involves an actual loss, he will say what further compensation or relief it is proposed to give?

Earl WINTERTON: I cannot find in the Montagu-Chelmsford Report any statement such as that suggested in the first part of the question. On the contrary, it was stated that higher qualifications than ever will be required of the members of the Indian Civil Service, and for this purpose improvement of the conditions of service was recommended. The revision of pay is not the only step which has been taken; among other concessions, officers will not in future be required to contribute 4 per cent, of their salary
towards retiring annuity. As regards further action, I am not in a position to add anything at present to the statement made by the Secretary of State in another place on 11th April.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the Noble Lord aware that there is great discontent in the Civil Service and that unless something is done to alleviate that discontent, there will soon be no British members left at all?

Earl WINTERTON: I cannot accept what the hon. Member says. I do not think that that is a proper statement to make. The question is not capable of being dealt with by question and answer, and should be more properly dealt with in Debate.

BURMA (CONSTITUTION).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the elected members of the Burma, Legislative Council or any other representative body of natives of Burma or of India have asked for communal representation under the new Burma constitution; and, if so, what bodies made any such request?

Earl WINTERTON: So far as I am aware, no Burmans have asked for communal representation; and it was not to be expected that they would. The hon. and gallant Member, as a Member of the Standing Joint Committee, will very shortly be made aware of all the reasons why it is proposed to provide special representation for four communities other than the Burmese in the new constitution, and I am hopeful that he will be convinced that the proposal is necessary.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the Noble Lord taken any steps to convince the Government of India in the same direction?

Earl WINTERTON: My hon. and gallant Friend will have an opportunity at the Standing Joint Committee tomorrow of subjecting me to a long and an extensive cross-examination, which I hope he will find both pleasurable and profitable. I prefer to answer further questions on that occasion.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

EX-SERVICE MEN.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that on 8th May every ex-service man employed in the Army departments in Southern Ireland received a notice stating that he will be liable to discharge on a week's notice at the end of one month after the date of the notice of 8th May; and whether the men so discharged will receive any pensions or gratuities or be transferred to England, as recommended by the General Officer Commanding in Chief in Ireland on 16th January last?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I have not seen the terms of the notices referred to, but I am aware that such notices have been given by the local military authorities in Ireland. These notices are not specially applicable to ex-service mien, but have been given to all civilians for whom local War Department employment cannot be found under the new conditions, with the object of affording them as much opportunity as possible of seeking new employment. I trust that a large number of those concerned, and especially of those who have been employed continuously since before the War, can be absorbed in vacancies elsewhere than in Ireland, and all steps consistent with economy and with fairness to other employés of the Department are being taken to that end. I regret that, as regards special pecuniary assistance, I am not in a position to make any statement.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the desirability of giving employment in England under the War Office to ex-service men in Ireland who will be without any protection and probably lose their lives if they remain in Ireland?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: My answer indicates that, so far as possible, that will be done. I have, however, to take into account the fact that there are ex-service men in England and that employment of that sort is being reduced.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Where these ex-service men in Ireland cannot be absorbed, will they be dealt with by the
Committee presided over by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare)?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If they come within the terms of reference to that Committee.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will it be possible for these men to be brought to England for disbandment, and not disbanded in Ireland, having regard to the great risks in that country?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not think that all of them would run those risks. If their cases are put before the Committee referred to they can be taken into consideration.

Sir J. BUTCHER: In view of the impossibility of these ex-service men getting employment in Southern Ireland in present conditions, will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to transfer them to England where they can get employment?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have already answered that, so far as the limited employment in my power is concerned, that is being done.

Mr. HURD: 48.
asked the Prime Minister what special measures the Government have in view for the future subsistence of men of the Army, Navy, and Air Forces, and the Royal Irish Constabulary who are displaced by the Government policy of financial retrenchment or Irish government; and, especially, whether, pending the passage of the Empire Settlement Bill, the Government will provide these officers and men and their families with free passages to any part of the Empire overseas and invite the overseas governments to co-operate in their settlement under the most favourable possible conditions?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): In the case of the officers and men in the Army and Navy who are discharged in consequence of the reductions in those forces the Government has decided to grant special compensation terms. Particulars are contained in the Fleet and Army Orders which were recently published in the Press.
In addition the Admiralty and the War Office will render all possible assistance to discharged officers and men who desire to obtain fresh employment
In the case of the Air Force, no discharges have proved to be necessary. The special steps taken to meet the case of the R.I.C. have been explained in recent answers to Parliamentary questions and are described in Command Paper 1618A.
As regards the second part of the question, I trust that the passage of the Empire Settlement Bill will enable schemes to be framed at an early date for co-operation with the Dominions which will secure the object indicated by my hon. Friend. In the meantime, everything possible is being done to assist those who desire to proceed overseas forthwith. Special arrangements have been made to enable members of the Royal Irish Constabulary to commute part of their pensions to meet the cost of their passages, and temporary arrangements are being made with some of the Oversea Governments to find them employment overseas.

BARRACKS AND CAMPS.

Colonel NEWMAN: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give the total number of barracks, the property of the Crown, that under the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act have been handed over to the Southern Ireland Ministry of Defence, together with the number of camps and training grounds such as the Curragh and Kilworth; and has he now been able to form a rough estimate of the value of such buildings and of the acreage and value of the training camps?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No barracks, camps or training grounds have yet been transferred, but as evacuation proceeds a number of properties are being placed in the hands of the Provisional Government for custody pending settlement as to which of them shall be formally taken over, and on what terms.

Colonel NEWMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the other day the Curragh was taken over, and that Kilworth was taken over months ago, and does he say that these great properties, worth hundreds of thousands of pounds, have been handed over without provision for repayment?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I mean exactly what my answer says, that they have been placed in the hands of the Provisional Government for custody,
pending settlement as to which of them shall be formally taken over, and on what terms.

Colonel NEWMAN: Supposing there is no settlement arrived at, what is to happen to the camps?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Then my hon. and gallant Friend had better repeat his question.

KIDNAPPED BRITISH OFFICERS.

Sir W. DAVISON: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the precise terms of the representations which have been.made to the Provisional Government for Southern Ireland with regard to the three British officers and private who were kidnapped last month; and what action has so far been taken by the Provisional Government to ascertain the fate of these four British citizens in the pay of the Crown?

Captain Viscount CURZON: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is as yet any news of the three officers and one private kidnapped at Macroom; if not, what steps are being taken by the Provisional Government to ascertain their fate; whether the Government have reason to think that they are still alive; and can their names now be given?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): I will answer this question and No. 34 together. I regret that I am still without information in regard to the fate of these men, but it is obviously undesirable, and could serve no useful purpose, for me to disclose the precise terms of the representation made to the Provisional Government, or the exact steps taken by the Provisional Government in pursuance of their investigations. I must ask the House to accept my assurance that everything possible is being done by His Majesty's Government in the matter. The names of those kidnapped are as follow:—

Lieutenant R. A. Hendy, Royal Warwickshire Regiment;
Lieutenant G. R. A. Dove, 2nd Hampshire Regiment;
Lieutenant K. R. Henderson, M.C., 2nd The Green Howards; and
Private J. Brooks, Royal Army Service Corps.

Viscount CURZON: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the third part of the question—whether the Government have reason to think that these officers and one man are still alive?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid that those British authorities in Ireland to whom we handed the matter and who have been endeavouring to trace these officers, have maintained a growing depression of hope of that.

Sir W. DAVISON: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the House some information as to what has happened to the motor-car these officers were in, or what was the last news the Government officials had with regard to these officers? Great anxiety is felt in the matter.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Every effort is being made by His Majesty's Government to have the matter unravelled, and every effort will continue to be made.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: Having regard to the grave danger incurred by soldiers returning to Ireland to their homes, will the right hon. Gentleman postpone the disbandment of the Irish regiments?

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: If, unhappily, it proves that these unfortunate officers and this man, have been murdered, will compensation be paid to their relatives; and, if so, who will find the money—the British taxpayer or the Provisional Government?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have received a letter from the Provisional Government in regard to the expenses which are to be disbursed on behalf of refugees from Ireland now in this country, in which the Provisional Government express appreciation of the fact that the British Government has undertaken this task in the first instance, and complete readiness to defray the expenses on their part. I am. certain, if no serious turn takes place in the general relations between the two Governments, that matters of this kind must be dealt with and will be dealt with, if not by one Government, certainly by the other.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a strong opinion from a source not likely to be misinformed, that there officers were murdered immediately after they were taken?

Mr. RAWLINSON: What has the Provisional Government done in regard to these officers? Have they taken any really effective steps to find out what happened to them?

Mr. CHURCHILL: They have done everything in their power, as far as I have been able to ascertain, but the part of the country in which these murders—if murders there have been—took place, is a part of the country which has been completely out of their control; they have not had the least control or authority there.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: In that connection, will the right hon. Gentleman consider my suggestion as to not disbanding these men at present?

Mr. CHURCHILL: These are not disbanded men; they are officers who were on active service.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: I know that, but is it not the fact that the Irish regiments are to be disbanded very shortly; and should this matter not be considered?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member had better put that question down.

BLOOMHILL NATIONAL SCHOOL (SEIZURE).

Captain FOXCROFT: 88.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if his attention has been drawn to the seizure of the National School at Bloomhill, Shannon-bridge, King's County; whether he is aware that the parents have been forbidden to send their children to this school again; whether this action constitutes a breach of Article 16 of the Articles of Agreement with Southern Ireland; and, if so, will he make representations to the Provisional Government on this subject?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am inquiring into this matter, and shall be glad if the hon. and gallant Member will repeat the question one day next week.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

OFFICERS (COMPULSORY RETIREMENT).

Captain LOSEBY: 13
asked the Secretary of State for War (1) if he is aware that the present method of compulsory retirement of officers under the Geddes Committee Report presses very hardly on officers who, as a result of ser-
vice during the recent War, were partially disabled but who nevertheless would normally have been retained in the Army; that it presses particularly hardly on officers who, owing to their high efficiency, have not been recommended for discharge under the least desirable for retention clause; if he will consider the desirability of setting up a Select Committee to consider and report upon the most equitable system of compensation;
(2) if, as a result of the Geddes Committee Report, officers are being retired on half-pay for five years on the grounds that, although fit for the time being, they would probably not be able to stand the strain of active service; what compensation is it proposed to pay these officers for their compulsory retirement on grounds not previously anticipated by either of the contracting parties;
(3) if, as a result of the Geddes Committee Report, certain officers are being compulsorily retired, on the grounds that though efficient, they are least desirable for retention; and if it is proposed to pay them compensation on the same basis as is paid to officers compulsorily retired, on the grounds that, though efficient, they would probably not be able to stand the strain of active service?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): In connection with the reduction of the Army following upon the Geddes Committee, officers are being retired in two ways—
First, for permanent medical unfitness for general service. This is a reversion to a normal rule of the Service, which had been temporarily in abeyance in the years following the War in view of the abnormal demand for trained officers. Those whose unfitness arises from service in the War are entitled to benefit under the Regulations of the Ministry of Pensions, but not to the special compensation terms approved for the second class.
Second, by selection of those officers who are least desirable for retention though not inefficient. These officers, who are leaving the Army solely on account of the reduction of establishment, receive the special terms.
These matters have already been fully considered and approved by His Majesty's Government, and I see no necessity for a Select Committee. If the hon. and
gallant Member is still in doubt as to the operation of the rules in any particular case, perhaps he will give me more precise particulars of it.

Captain LOSEBY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that many officers are being compulsorily retired on the medical ground that though they are fit for immediate service they would not stand active service? If that be so, would it not be possible for my hon. and gallant Friend to give an assurance that all officers fit for service compulsorily retired, should have the alternative of receiving the same compensation as is paid to officers retired on the least desirable for retention clause?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: That is what I want my hon. and gallant Friend to give me more precise information about. When he does so, I will have, careful inquiry made and give a proper answer.

Captain GEE: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman let officers know as soon as possible that they are to be retired, as many have received offers of employment which they have not accepted because they did not know?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: That is why we are taking steps to let them know as soon as we possibly can.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Would officers who are efficient and willing to retire he entitled to compensation if they retire?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman puts a question on the Paper it will be answered.

Sir P. RICHARDSON: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether any provision is made whereby officers with less than ten years' service who may retire voluntarily at this period under the terms of Army Order 179–180 of 1922, can receive the proportion of their gratuity due after ten years' service under Army Order 325 of 1919, seeing that the compensation under the 1922 Orders is greater and to the advantage of those compulsorily retired?

Viscount WOLMER: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether permission will be given to all officers in the Army, as has been given to officers in the Navy,
to volunteer to leave the Service with compensation according to the terms published; and, if not, whether he will state the reason for this differentiation of treatment?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The terms published are compensation for officers whose careers in the Army are compulsorily terminated solely by reason of the reductions in the establishment of the Army. It is not intended to make them applicable to officers who voluntarily retire, for whom the ordinary conditions and terms remain open. I cannot speak as regards Naval conditions, but as regards the Army it is considered that its best interests will be served by selecting for retirement those whose retention is least essential.

Captain W. BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it rather hard on the efficient officer who is willing to go that he should be treated less generously than the inefficient officer who is compulsorily retired?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It would be hard on the Army if it lost the services of that officer.

Viscount WOLMER: Has the right hon. Gentleman been in consultation with the Admiralty on this matter in order to arrive at parity of policy?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Parity of policy is possible only where there is parity of service, and there is no parity of service in these cases.

TERRITORIAL ARMY (DECORATIONS).

Sir R. NEWMAN: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether steps can be taken which will entitle an officer's service in the South African War to count equally with service in the recent War when qualifying for the Territorial decoration?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, Sir; I am not prepared to recommend that the concession granted in respect of the Great War should he made retrospective.

MEDALS (PRIVATE J. DAVIDSON).

Mr. WALLACE: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a demand has been made by the
Records Office, Hamilton, to the governor of Dysart combination poorhouse for the return of the medals awarded to the late Private J. Davidson, No. 14,028, King's Own Scottish Borderers, on the ground that the deceased gallant soldier died intestate and was of illegitimate birth that the late Private J. Davidson, who volunteered for service, was born in Dysart combination poorhouse; that he never had any other home; and that the medals and King's scroll awarded to him were framed and hung in the board room of the institution and highly prized by the officials there and will he state on what authority and for what purpose the return of the medals is now demanded?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am inquiring into this case, and will communicate further with my hon. Friend.

TERRITORIAL ARMY (RECRUITING).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir P. RICHARDSON: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for War what progress has been made in the enrolment of Territorials during the first four months of the present year, and whether, if he does not regard it as satisfactory, what steps he proposes to take to further popularise the force?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The intake of recruits during the period in question was 15,860. This is not regarded as unsatisfactory, but, compared with other parts of the country, recruiting in London is not good, and steps are being taken to endeavour to remedy this.

CROWN COLONIES (LOANS).

Major GLYN: 21
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) what was the gross total revenue and expenditure of all the British Crown Colonies for the years 1913–14 and 1920–21; what loans and for what total sum have been issued on the London market for the development of Crown Colonies for the 10 years prior to the War and since the War, respectively; what is the estimated total value of money represented by the applications of Crown Colonies to issue loans on the London market with the consent of the Colonial Office;
(2) what were the figures for each of the Crown Colonies, showing their separate budget surplus or deficiency for
1921; which of the Crown Colonies have a scale of expenditure on administration which is met by revenue; whether the Crown agents, in consultation with the Colonial Office, anticipate the issue of a loan on the London market in the near future that will enable two or more Crown Colonies to combine in making the issue; and whether there are any Crown Colonies which find themselves held up in their development for lack of free assets to offer as security for a loan?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As the answers to both these questions are necessarily long, and include statistics, I will, with my right hon. Friend's permission, circulate the replies in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the replies:

The total revenue of the Colonies and Protectorates for the last financial year before the War amounted to £26,355,644 and the total expenditure to £26,187,187; for the financial year 1920 or 1920–21 the

STATEMENT OF REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE, 1921–22.


Financial Year.
Revenue.
Expenditure.


Gibraltar (Jan.-Dec.)
…
…
…
£217,002
*£216,917


Gambia (Jan.-Dec.)
…
…
…
£207,813
*£173,117


Sierra Leone (Jan.-Dec.)
…
…
…
£1,030,235
*£955,915


Gold Coast (April-March)
…
…
…
£2,604,300
*£2,896,790


Nigeria† (April-March)
…
…
…
£4,557,401
£6,806,000


Kenya (April-Dec.)
…
…
…
£1,828,644
*£1,828,644


Ceylon (Oct. 20-Oct. 21)
…
…
…
Rs. 70,421,700
Rs. 82,179,673


Mauritius (July 20-July 21)
…
…
…
Rs. 25,650,000
Rs. 22,250,000


Seychelles (Jan.-Dec.)
…
…
…
Rs. 574,015
Rs. 592,349


St. Helena (Jan.-Dec.)
…
…
…
£7,029
£11,757


Straits Settlements Jan.-Dec.)
…
…
…
‡$34,699,735
$41,389,910


Hong Kong (Jan.-Dec.)
…
…
…
§$ 16,590,519
$16,111,990


Fiji (Jan.-Dec.)
…
…
…
£624,025
*£497,543


Gilbert and Ellice Islands (April-March)
…
…
…
£49,105
*£46,663


Jamaica (April-March)
…
…
…
£1,950,230
*£1,996,712


Leeward Islands (April-March)
…
…
…
£278,639
*£266,125


Windward Island- (Jan.-Dec.)
…
…
…
£297,575
*£286,404


British Guiana (Jan. Dec.)
…
…
…
║$5,450,703
*$5,026,001


Trinidad (Jan.-Dec.)
…
…
…
£1,775,965
*£1,729,531


Falkland Islands (Jan.-Dec.)
…
…
…
£29,945
*£37,411


British Honduras (April-March)
…
…
…
║$1,006,271
*$964,500


*"Ordinary" expenditure only.


†Revised estimate.


‡Straits dollars = 2s. 4d. Deficit met from savings.


$Hong Kong dollars (fluctuating).


║U.S.A. dollars

NATIVE LANDS (ALIENATION).

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received information

revenue amounted to £52,513,296 and the expenditure to £54,779,503; during the years 1904-14 the total loans issued by Colonial Governments amounted to £26,565,000—since 1914 to £37,980,000 including the loan just being issued on behalf of the Straits Settlements. I do not think it would be in the public interest to state what further loan issues are in contemplation.

I annex a statement showing as nearly as possible the budget figures for 1921 for the Colonies which do not possess responsible government. The answer to the second part of the question, if I understand it correctly, is that all Colonies are still able to meet their ordinary administration expenses out of revenue if extraordinary expenditure is not taken into account.

The answer to the third part of the question is in the negative. As regards the fourth part, it is not the practice to issue Colonial loans secured on particular assets, and the answer is, therefore, none.

as to the area of lands in native occupation alienated to white men since 1914?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The despatch from the Governor has not yet been received, but is expected very shortly.

IMPERIAL PREFERENCE (JAMAICA).

Mr. HURD: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Government of Jamaica has published in the West Indian and Canadian Press for general information his despatch of 9th March on the proposal to continue for 10 years the preference on goods at present entitled to preferential rates on importation into Great Britain; and whether the despatch will be laid before this Parliament forthwith, together with any replies that may have been received from Colonial Governors?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The despatch in question was sent to the Colonial Governments with a view to publication, and it will be laid before the House as early as possible. A notification has been received from the Governments of Jamaica and Barbados that publication has taken place; but no other replies have yet been received.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it proposed to consult the House of Commons before committing future Governments—a change is expected—to a fiscal policy for ten years?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I certainly hold that the Government has not gone beyond what is usual in matters of this kind. It is desirable that the Colonies should have some assurance of a continuance of conditions.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is quite fair, because for the moment there is a tremendous Protectionist majority in the House, that they should bind future Governments for ten years?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. and gallant Gentleman, who is to form a part of the Government of the future, will be perfectly free, of course, in this, as in other matters, to break faith with the Colonies.

KENYA (NATIVES, REGISTRATION).

Mr. HOGGE: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Government of Kenya Colony is now spending £250,000 per annum upon Native pass laws; whether this includes registration and taking the
finger-prints of all adult males of the Colony; and whether, in view of the financial difficulties of the dependency, he will consult the governor as to the advisability of abolishing this unproductive expenditure?

Mr. CHURCHILL: There are no native pass laws in Kenya, but there is a system in force by which every native is required to register himself and to carry his certificate upon his person. The provision in the current year's Estimate for the registration of natives amounts to 214,209, and for the Finger Print Bureau to £6,775. The system of registration is held by many competent authorities to be of considerable value to the natives themselves, and I cannot admit that the expenditure on it is unproductive. The expenditure will come under review by the committee appointed by the Governor to inquire into the whole question of administrative expenditure, and I am not prepared to anticipate their recommendations.

Mr. HOGGE: What advantage is this?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is certainly of great advantage that there should be some means of identifying individual natives. It is part of the necessary process for developing and organising the country.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not part of the necessary process of enslaving the native worker?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Certainly not. That is a very offensive suggestion.

Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of extending this system to Members of the Coalition?

Mr. CHURCHILL: We might try it on the Wee Frees.

GOLD COAST (COCOA).

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that the Agricultural Department of the Gold Coast has repeatedly drawn attention to the fact that the low price now being paid to the natives for cocoa is endangering the entire industry, and that in the most recent report the Department expresses the view that unless some change takes place the
cocoa industry may become a thing of the past, he is prepared to fake any action in the matter?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The report to which the hon. Member refers was dated 7th June of last year. So far, there are no signs of any failure of the industry. The export of cocoa for 1921 was 133,000 tons, as against. 124,000 tons in 1920, and indications point to an even larger export during the current year. The only action which seems possible is to induce the farmers to improve their present imperfect methods of cultivating and preparing the crop—which are part of the cause of low prices; and this is being done.

EAST AND WEST AFRICA (HIDES, EXPORT TRADE).

Captain W. BENN: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make any statement as to the effect on the trade in hides, both in East and West Africa, of the export duties imposed upon these products?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The export duty on hides in Kenya has been imposed for many years, and the recent set-back in the export of hides is probably due in the main to the general trade depression rather than to the export duty, which was of strictly moderate amount. In order, however, to do what is possible to encourage the trade, it has been decided to suspend the export duty until the end of 1922. As regards the export trade in hides in Nigeria, I do not think I can do better than refer the hon. Member to paragraphs 161 to 174 of the Report of the Committee on Trade and Taxation for British West Africa (Cmd. 1,600). There is no export duty on hides in the Gold Coast, Sierra Leone or the Gambia.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

ARAB DELEGATION.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has had an opportunity of conferring with the Moslem-Christian Arab delegation at present visiting England; whether the delegation have fully represented to him their attitude towards the Government of Palestine; and whether in view of the importance of the questions
at issue, he will make a statement to the House, or issue a Report, regarding his conference with this delegation?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The reply to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the third part of the question, I am not in a position at present to make any statement.

Mr. MALONE: In view of the presence in this country of the High Commissioner and also of the envoy from the Vatican, will the right hon. Gentleman call these people together and try to come to a decision on the Palestine question?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not prepared to make any statement now. I have seen these gentlemen on several occasions, and have also consulted the High Commissioner. The main settlement of this matter must take place in Palestine on the spot.

Mr. MALONE: Does it not do a great deal of harm to allow people to disseminate, rightly or wrongly, propaganda?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. Friend is in a position to give rather than to receive information on that subject.

VATICAN MISSION.

Mr. MALONE: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the attitude adopted by the Vatican towards the Government's policy in Palestine; and whether an envoy from the Vatican will shortly arrive in London charged with a special mission to the Government on this matter?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The Vatican are apprehensive as to the adequate protection in Palestine of the rights of Catholic and other Christian confessions, and are distrustful of the Zionist position. No official information has been received regarding the second part of the question.

Mr. MALONE: Has the hon. Gentleman or the Secretary for the Colonies seen the very offensive statement made by Monsignor Barlassina, Roman Catholic Patriarch of Jerusalem, concerning his Excellency the Governor and Administrator of Palestine, and will steps be taken to contradict these allegations?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I will inquire about that matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQ.

OIL CONCESSIONS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any explorations or drilling for oils is proceeding in Iraq, and with what result; what companies or persons are engaged in this work; whether any oil concessions have actually been granted; and, if so, to whom?

Mr. CHURCHILL: For answers to the first and second parts of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which was given him on 9th May. As to the third and fourth parts of the question, no concession in respect of oil in Iraq have been granted since the British occupation. The Turkish Petroleum Company claim to have certain rights granted to them by the Turkish Government before the War in respect of all oil deposits (other than those in the transferred territories) in the Bagdad and Mosul vilayets.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is this not a very unsatisfactory explanation, in view of the fact that were told there were rich oil deposits that would pay us our expenditure, and should not something be done?

BRITISH MANDATE.

Captain W. BENN: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether King Feisal and the Iraq Ministry have informed Sir Percy Cox that the people of Iraq have refused the British Mesopotamian Mandate?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.

SHOPS ACT.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a comprehensive Bill to amend the Shops Acts has been promised for some time; and whether he proposes to introduce such a Bill this Session?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I am aware of the need for comprehensive legislation on the subject, but as stated in reply to recent questions in this
House, I do not contemplate the introduction of amending legislation during the present Session.

MOUNTED POLICE.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 36.
asked the Home Secretary the number of mounted police in this country for each year from 1913 to date, and the number of motor cycles and cars in use by the police covering the same years?

Mr. SHORTT: The information desired is not available in the Home. Office, and I would not feel justified in present circumstances in imposing upon local authorities the labour involved in preparing special returns.

TAXI-CAB FARES.

Colonel NEWMAN: 37.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has received any communication from any society, association, or union that represents the travelling public to the effect that the fares for travelling by taxi-cab should be reduced in view of the fall in running and operating expenses; and what answer has he been able to make?

Mr. SHORTT: I have received a communication to the effect stated from the National Citizens Union, and have told them in reply that I was considering the matter.

PROBATION OF OFFENDERS ACT.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 38.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the statement contained in the Report of the Departmental Committee on Probation Officers, that out of 1,034 courts of summary jurisdiction in England and Wales there are still, 14 years after the principal Act was passed, no less than 215 courts without a probation officer, the Government will state what steps they propose to take to enforce the proper carrying out of this Act?

Mr. SHORTT: The use of the procedure provided by the Probation of Offenders Act and the appointment of probation officers rests with the magistrates. The Home Office has on several occasions drawn their attention to the desirability
of releasing offenders on probation in all suitable cases and urged the appointment of probation officers, and I propose to send to every Bench a copy of the Report of the recent Departmental Committee. I hope also that the Advisory Committee which, in accordance with the recommendation in the Report, it is proposed to appoint, will be able to assist greatly in the development of the probation system in this country.

FACTORY ACTS.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 39.
asked the Home Secretary whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce this Session a Bill to amend the Factory Acts?

Mr. SHORTT: It is not proposed to introduce a Bill to amend the Factory Acts this Session.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware this reform is greatly overdue; and that it was promised last Session and the Session before that?

Mr. SHORTT: Yes, Sir, I am aware that it is overdue, but I am afraid it is not possible to introduce it this Session.

INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES (REPORT).

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 40.
asked the Home Secretary when the Report of His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Factories will be presented to Parliament?

Mr. SHORTT: I much regret to state that the Chief Inspector, Mr. Graves, died suddenly last Sunday and his death may somewhat delay the Report. He had, however, brought it near completion, and the further revision still required will be carried out as speedily as possible. The House will perhaps allow me to take this opportunity of paying a public tribute to the distinguished services rendered by Mr. Graves during a long official career in many capacities and not least in connection with the "national service" administration during the War. He will be much missed in the Home Office.

POISONS.

Major BARNETT: 41.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to a case of strychnine poisoning by misadventure in which one of His Majesty's judges suggested that mistakes of this kind could be obviated if it was enacted that all poisons should be of definite and distinctive colours; and, if so, whether he will consider the desirability of issuing Regulations under the Poisons Act or otherwise to carry the suggestion into effect?

Mr. SPORTT: I am advised that the Regulations for the keeping of poisons direct them to be "kept in a room or cupboard set apart" for the purpose, and that the observance of this rule should in ordinary circumstances render such occurrences impossible. Inquiries are being made of the Pharmaceutical Society as to the practicability of employing definite and distinctive colours for poisons, and if a favourable report is received the possibility of making new Regulations under the Poisons and Pharmacy Acts will be considered.

MOTOR PARKS (LONDON STREETS).

Viscount CURZON: 42.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can state clearly, for the guidance of motorists, exactly where motor vehicles may be parked in the London streets; whether he can ensure that the police have clear and intelligible instructions and are able to inform anyone who may seek information on the point; and whether he will consider the appointment of a Committee to deal with the question in conjunction with the Ministry of Transport?

Mr. SHORTT: As parking places are fixed in the central parts of London, particulars are sent to the Press for general information, and are also supplied to clubs, business premises, etc., in the area affected for the information of persons calling there. Police in the neighbourhood concerned have full instructions on the subject, and will inform inquirers. There is already in existence a small Police Committee, which includes a Member of Parliament.

Viscount CURZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the police are unaware of the instructions which, according to the information supplied to him,
have been issued, as to where motor cars may be parked, and that, for some reason, members of the public are kept chasing about all over the place to find their cars?

Mr. SHORTT: I am not aware of that. If the Noble Lord will give me any information as to this being the case I will inquire into it.

EX-SERVICE MEN (ORKNEY AND SHETLAND).

Sir M. SMITH: 43.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the fact that no land settlements have yet been effected for ex-service men in Orkney while 165 are on the waiting list, that only 46 settlements have been made in Shetland where there are still 203 applicants, and having regard to the great hardship and loss to which these men and their families are being subjected, and also in view of the intense feeling of indignation caused by the delay in arranging settlements, he will take steps to ensure that settlements in both counties are now completed without further delay?

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. C. D. Murray): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply to his questions on the 16th instant given by my right hon. Friend in which he informed him that schemes for the settlement of ex-service men in Orkney and Shetland have reached an advanced stage. The normal term of outgoing in these counties is Martinmas and the Board of Agriculture for Scotland are making every effort to put the schemes referred to into operation at Martinmas next.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

ADVISORY COUNCIL.

Mr. HURD: 44.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will state whom he has selected to represent the agricultural interest upon the business Advisory Committee at the Post Office?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Kellaway): I have appointed Lieut.-Colonel Rouse Orlebar, of Hinwick House, near Wellingborough, a member of the Post Office Advisory Council.

WIRELESS BROADCASTING.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: 60.
asked the Postmaster-General on what principle and subject to what conditions licences for wireless broadcasting stations are given to industrial concerns; and whether he will name the concerns, if any, to which licences have been or are to be given?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I am not yet in a position to furnish the information required by the hon. and gallant Member. As he was informed on the 18th instant, a statement will be made on the subject as soon as the conditions are definitely settled. The manufacturers concerned are meeting to-day with a view to formulating proposals for my consideration.

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF POSTAL AND TELEGRAPH CLERICS.

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: 61.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the National Federation of Postal and Telegraph Clerks has a London membership of 3,350 sorters and 1,200 telegraphists and counter clerks out of 7,200 sorters and 4,000 telegraphists and counter clerks; that the total membership of the federation in the country is 7,000 out of an estimated 10,000 organised sorting clerks and telegraphists; and that the aims of the federation are strictly constitutional and non-political; and whether, in view of these facts, he will officially recognise this federation?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The local branches of the federation are already officially recognised at those London offices at which they represent as many as one third of the staff employed. Representations have recently been made to me as regards further recognition in London, particularly in connection with the Whitley Committees; and I am considering the matter at the present moment. As regards the provinces, my information is that the federation only represents a negligible proportion of the total provincial Post Office indoor staff; and I do not feel justified in recognising them as entitled to speak on behalf of this staff, which is already represented by a recognised association. It is obviously inconvenient for two associations to represent the same grade of employés.

TOWN SUB-OFFICE, EASTBOURNE.

Mr. AMMON: 62.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, as the result of the transfer of the head post office at Eastbourne to a less convenient situation, a town sub-office has been created in the centre of the principal shopping thoroughfare, midway between the railway station and the sea, and that this office, which is staffed by a sub-postmistress and four women clerks, who are paid at a rate considerably below the scale received by the established staff at the head office, deals with a volume of work out of all proportion to its character; and whether, having regard to the importance of the office and to the desirability of providing adequate facilities in a central position, he will convert the present town sub-office into a branch office?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I am having inquiries made and will communicate with the hon. Member.

CABLE COMMUNICATION, STORNOWAY.

Dr. MURRAY: 63.
asked the Postmaster-General when the cable communication between Stornoway and the mainland is likely to be restored?

Mr. KELLAWAY: A cable ship is about to start on an expedition which will include the repair of the cable between Stornoway and the mainland. There are several other cables to be repaired en route, but with favourable weather conditions it is anticipated that it will be possible to repair the Stornoway cable within three weeks or a month. Meanwhile a service is being maintained with the Outer Hebrides by means of the wireless stations at Tobermory and Lochboisdale.

COLLECTION AND DELIVERY (COSTS).

Viscount CURZON: 66.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he can give the average cost of collection and delivery of a parcel, a letter, and a postcard in the United Kingdom?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The present average cost of the collection, handling, conveyance, and delivery of a parcel, a letter, and a postcard, respectively, in the United Kingdom, is at present approximately, a parcel, 1s. 1½d.; a letter, 1⅙d.; a postcard, 1d.

GERMANY (REPARATION BONDS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether the three issues of reparation bonds by Germany, which were to have been delivered last year, were in fact delivered, or whether this scheme has fallen through; and, if not, when it is proposed to issue the first series of bonds?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): German Government bonds in respect of the three series provided for in the Schedule of Payments were duly delivered by the German Government and are held by the Reparation Commission.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: When is it proposed to issue the first series?

Mr. YOUNG: I must have misunderstood the hon. and gallant Member's question. I thought he was referring to the German Government bonds.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE.

Mr. MALONE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister who are the members of the Committee appointed to investigate the practicability of a Ministry of Defence and who is the chairman; and when and where will the meetings be held?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his speech on the 1st March, the question raised by the suggestion in the Report of the Geddes Committee for a Ministry of Defence is to come up for consideration by the Committee of Imperial Defence.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

APPEAL CASES.

Mr. HAYDAY: 68.
asked the Minister of Pensions the number of pension appeal cases heard before the pensions appeal tribunal in Nottingham on Tuesday, 16th March, 1922, together with the decision in each case?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Pollock): I have been asked to reply. The number of appeals dealt with on Tuesday, 16th March, 1922, before the tribunal sitting at Nottingham was nine.
Of these, three were allowed, one was adjourned, and the remainder were disallowed.

Mr. HAYDAY: 69.
asked the Minister of Pensions the total number of appeal cases heard by the pensions appeal tribunals during the year ending December, 1921, together with a summary of the decisions?

Sir E. POLLOCK: I have been asked to reply. The total number of appeal cases heard by the pensions appeal tribunals for England and Wales during the year ending 31st December, 1921, was 36,329. Of these, 9,877 were allowed, 26.141 disallowed, and 311 were withdrawn by the appellants.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: 67.
asked the Minister of Pensions the number of appeal cases that have been heard from the West of Scotland by the pensions appeal tribunal, during the year 1921 and for the first three months of the present year; and will he state the number that have been allowed?

Mr. MURRAY: I have been asked to reply to this question. I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General to similar questions on 14th and 16th March last. For the reasons given by my right hon. Friend, I regret that I cannot undertake to give the figures desired by the hon. Member.

NORFOLK REGIMENT (LATE PRIVATE C. CALVER).

Mr. GEORGE EDWARDS: 70.
asked the Minister of Pensions if his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. Charles Calver, Wattlefield, Wymondham, Norfolk, father of the late Private Charles Calver, No. 7037, Norfolk Regiment, who was killed in November, 1914, who has been refused a pension on the grounds that he was not dependent. on his son prior to mobilisation: whether he is aware that the soldier supported his father both in civil and military life, and regularly sent home money and other gifts; and whether he will have further inquiries made into the matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The decision in this case was made after careful inquiries had failed to
produce any evidence of pre-War dependence. My right hon. Friend will, however, be glad to consider any information to the contrary which my hon. Friend may have.

Mr. EDWARDS: Is it not a fact that this man's son supported him until a fortnight of his death?

Major TRYON: My information is that no allotment was made by the late soldier while he was on service, and no separation allowance was paid. It is not a ease for making an allowance.

Mr. EDWARDS: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman make inquiries?

Major TRYON: If my hon. Friend can give me any information to establish this man's claim, I shall be grateful to him. I hope he will send it.

ASIA MINOR (TURKS AND CHRISTIAN MINORITIES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether any reply has been received from the Government of the Angora National Assembly to the proposal of His Majesty's Government to send Allied officers to investigate alleged atrocities against the Greek population whether His Majesty's Government have considered inviting neutral officers, other than Americans, to make these investigations, in view of the fact that a technical state of war still exists between the Allies and Turkey whether the Government of the French Republic is sending a Commission to the Smyrna region to investigate alleged atrocities committed by the Greeks against the Turkish population; and whether His Majesty's Government will be represented on that Commission?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Pending the receipt of a reply from the American Government to the proposals of His Majesty's Government, no formal request for facilities for the proposed Commission has yet been addressed to the Angora National Assembly. The latter have unofficially informed the Italian Government that they are prepared to accept the proposed Commission, but they appear to have attached certain conditions to this acceptance. The United States Government has never
been in a State of war with Turkey and is therefore a neutral Government; the inclusion in the Commission of officers of any other neutral state does not form part of the proposals of His Majesty's Government.
With regard to the dispatch of a Commission to the Smyrna area, I would refer to the replies which I gave to my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin on the 17th instant. His Majesty's Government have no information regarding the dispatch of any independent Commission to the Smyrna area by the French Government, and the last part of the question does not therefore arise.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the American Commission in Eastern Turkey, right or wrongly, are accused of complicity in risings—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"]—and therefore they are not looked upon as neutral in this matter, and will His Majesty's Government consider that position?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid I did not catch the opening remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but if the American Government is not regarded as neutral in any quarter, I do not know what that quarter is, and I am quite certain that the opinion of the American Government, or of American officers, is the opinion which perhaps, after that of our own British officers, would carry the greatest conviction to the people of this country.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (TREASURY GRANTS COMMITTEE).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the. Exchequer whether he is now in a position to give the names of the persons constituting the Committee which is to inquire into the method of making Treasury grants to local authorities?

Mr. YOUNG: The Committee will be constituted as follows:

The right hon. Lord Meston, K.C.S.I., LL.D., Chairman.
The right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. A. Henderson).
The hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Colonel Peel).
The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham).
1006
The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hinds).
The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Holmes).
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd).
Sir Harry Haward.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when this Committee is likely to report?

Mr. YOUNG: I am afraid I could not do that.

ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY (CRICKET CLUBS).

Major Sir KEITH FRASER: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what revenue was derived last year from the Entertainments Duty on subscriptions to county cricket clubs; and what was the cost of collection?

Mr. YOUNG: The Revenue collected from particular classes of entertainment cannot be stated as the Duty may be paid by the purchase of Government stamps or tickets and the use to which such stamps or tickets are put is not known. As regards the latter part of the question, the cost of collecting particular Customs and Excise Duties cannot be given separately, still less that of collecting such duties as far as they affect special interests, as the work is mainly carried out by a common staff.

Sir K. FRASER: Is it possible to ascertain the numbers of members of cricket clubs who are liable to the Entertainments Duty, and will not the hon. Gentleman reconsider the whole question of having a more suitable method of raising revenue than by this unjust tax?

Mr. YOUNG: As to the first part of the question, I fear the information at the disposal of the Board would not enable them to give that figure. As to the second part, that is a question of policy, on which, no doubt, there will be opportunities for discussion later in the Session.

IMPORTED GERMAN GOODS (CUSTOMS REFUND).

Mr. KENYON: 59.
asked the. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is
aware of the complaint of a Manchester firm that in order to obtain delivery of certain German goods in April, 1921, they were compelled to deposit £157 in cash, which the Customs officials improperly demanded, and that, despite communications sent on the 19th July, 3rd August, 19th August, 1st September, 15th September, 7th October, and 17th October, 1921, all of which were duly acknowledged by His Majesty's Board of Customs, they did not succeed in obtaining the refund until the 1st February, 1922; and whether, in view of the hardship involved in withholding this large sum of money for so long a period and in order to avoid further similar occurrences, he is prepared either to increase the staff dealing with such matters or to adopt some simplified system?

Mr. YOUNG: If the hon. Member will give me particulars of the case he has in mind, such as the name of the importing firm and the reference number of the correspondence with the Customs, I will have inquiry made. I may point out, however, that, in cases of this nature, the importer had the option of entering into bond instead of making a cash deposit, in order to secure delivery of the goods.

CANADIAN CATTLE EMBARGO.

Captain FITZROY: 71.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the statements frequently made that the admission of Canadian store cattle would cheapen the price of meat, he can give any figures to show to what extent, if any, the price of beef depends on the price of store cattle; and whether there was any appreciable increase in the price of beef in the years following the first imposition of the embargo in 1892?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): There is no evidence to show that the price of store cattle determines the price of home-killed beef, which is mainly governed by the price of imported beef, just as the price of wheat and certain other agricultural products is mainly governed by the price of the imported article. Last year, for example, store cattle were expensive in the spring months, but the price of fat Battle and meat fell in the autumn.
With regard to the latter part of the question, Canadian store cattle were, as stated in the question, first excluded from this country in 1892. Official statistics of meat prices were not collected at that period, but records published in trade papers indicate that the average prices of beef at the London Central Market during the five years after this were about a halfpenny per pound less than in the five years before.

Mr. ROYCE: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that, because store cattle are dear now, we shall have cheaper meat in the autumn?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No, Sir; what I suggested was that the price of store cattle has nothing whatever to do with the price of beef.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH (OUTDOOR STAFF).

Captain ELLIOT: 74.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the revised regrading of the outdoor staff of the Ministry of Health gives the same proportion of higher to lower posts for men and women; and, if the proportion is fixed with strict regard to the requirements of the work, what is the cause of the differentiation seeing that the men and women are engaged on the same work?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The general position is that women inspectors are engaged to inspect trades where women are mainly employed and in inquiries as to the benefits of insured women. The proportion of higher to lower posts is fixed with reference to the requirements of the work, which is more limited in scope than that of the men inspectors. The proportion is rather more favourable in the case of the women.

WRITING ASSISTANTS.

Mr. HAYDAY: 72.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether a letter has been received from the Civil Service Clerical Association asking that a deputation be received to hear evidence for a justification for an increase of pay to writing assistants; and, if so, whether any action has been taken in the matter?

Mr. YOUNG: Yes, Sir. The Treasury is in correspondence with the Association on this matter, which is still under consideration.

SENIORITY LISTS.

Mr. RENDALL: 75.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Government to abolish, if possible, separate establishment lists for men and women, so that vacancies shall be filled by the most efficient officer, irrespective of sex; and, if so, why women have been removed from branches where they have been for some years working side by side with men, and why the segregation of the sexes, which in many Departments had been abandoned during the War, has been reintroduced as a result of reorganisation?

Mr. YOUNG: A Committee is being appointed to examine and report on the application of the general principle of common seniority lists for men and women to the classes included in the Report of the Reorganisation Committee of the National Whitley Council for the Civil Service. The last part of the question raises matters referring to the detailed organisation of the various Departments; but, speaking generally, I should not regard the modification of special temporary arrangements adopted during the War period as in any way prejudicing the position.

Mr. RENDALL: When will that Committee be set up, or has it already been set up?

Mr. YOUNG: The Committee which will be set up, if it has not already been constituted, will be of a very representative character. It will be set up without delay.

Mr. RENDALL: Will women be on that Committee?

Mr. YOUNG: Undoubtedly.

CUSTOMS STATISTICAL OFFICE.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: 73.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in connection with a machine experiment in the Customs Statistical Office, girl machine operators of 16 years of age are allowed to be in attendance until 10 p.m.; why male and female staff employed on the experiment are not being
paid overtime for excess duty; and whether the number of hours of excess duty thus performed is being taken into account in assessing the cost of work performed by the use of these machines?

Mr. YOUNG: No girl machine operator of 16 years of age or under has given attendance after 6 p.m., and no member of the staff of either sex employed in the experiment has been required to work overtime. Two or three of the other members of the female staff have voluntarily remained after official hours on a few occasions only. All relative facts will be taken into account in assessing the cost of the experiment.

POOR LAW ADMINISTRATION, POPLAR.

Sir REGINALD BLAIR: 78.
asked the Minister of Health how often a Poor Law inspector of the Ministry of Health has attended the Poplar Board of Guardians since November last?

Sir A. MOND: Since the end of November seven visits have been made by the inspectors to the relief stations or the guardians' offices. The inspectors have also met committees of the guardians to discuss matters of detailed administration, and, in addition, there have been a number of interviews at the offices of the Ministry.

Sir R. BLAIR: 79.
asked the Minister of Health if, in view of the serious Report of the administration of the Poor Law in Poplar, he is now prepared to introduce a Bill to reform the London Poor Law administration on the lines of the Maclean Report (Cd. 8,917) or, in the alternative, as a temporary measure, to establish a central Poor Law authority for London to control Poor Law administration?

Sir A. MOND: Pending the Report of the Royal Commission on London Government, I do not think it would be practicable to adopt either of the alternatives suggested by my hon. Friend.

Sir R. BLAIR: 80.
asked the Minister of Health if all the books and documents of the Poplar Board of Guardians exhibited to Mr. Cooper, who conducted the special inquiry, were at all times open to
the officers of the Ministry; and, if so, will he give the reason for the maladministration being permitted to go on for so long a period?

Sir A. MOND: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The officers of my Department have taken such action as was open to them to check specific cases of maladministration, and no part of the expenditure of the guardians will be allowed to be charged upon the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, which is in excess of the scale or which contravenes the conditions prescribed in the regulations. As regards expenditure which falls upon the ratepayers of Poplar alone, in so far as such expenditure is unlawful it is subject to disallowance by the District Auditor, and the guardians have been warned that in the event of the auditor finding it necessary to disallow expenditure incurred by the guardians in granting relief to persons who are not destitute, the guardians will be surcharged accordingly, and the surcharge will not be remitted. When it became clear that the guardians' expenditure was likely to exceed their available resources, and that it would be necessary for them to apply to me for advances of money out of public funds, I decided, in view of the reports which I had received from my officers, to appoint a special Commissioner to hold a detailed inquiry into the whole of the guardians' administration.

Sir W. DAVISON: May I ask whether, as a matter of fact, any of the guardians of Poplar have been surcharged? I could not gather whether the right hon. Gentleman said so or not.

Sir A. MOND: No, the audit has not yet taken place.

Sir J. D. REES: Will the ratepayers of Poplar and the contributory boroughs have any redress against comrade Lansbury and his associates?

Sir A. MOND: They will at the next election.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

CERTIFICATES OF COMPETENCY.

Mr. LAWSON: 81.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether a circular was issued from the Mines Department in August,
1921, to all the collieries in Great Britain, asking for a return showing the numbers of men employed at each colliery who, at that time, were in possession of first or second class certificates of competency, but were employed on work other than that of a supervisory character; and, if so, will he state the total number of men in possession of first and second class certificates who were engaged on work of a non-supervisory character, and the total number of men who were in possession of firemen's certificates, but were employed in a capacity superior to that of the fireman, but inferior to that of the under-manager?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): Yes, Sir. A return of this kind was collected last autumn. As well as can be estimated from this return, the number of persons holding first or second class certificates of competency and employed in mines otherwise than as managers, under-managers or overmen is about 2,000; and the number of persons holding firemen's certificates, but not first or second class certificates of competency, who are employed as overmen is about 2,400.

PRICES.

Sir ROBERT CLOUGH: 82.
asked the Secretary for Mines the price of the best house coal in March, 1913, in March, 1914, and in March, 1922?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The retail price of Derby Brights in Central London was, in March, 1913, 27s. per ton; in March, 1914, 28s. 6d. per ton; and in March, 1922, 60s. per ton.

Sir R. CLOUGH: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the 1922 price is very excessive, and difficult to justify?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I should not like to give an opinion on that, but I am making investigation, and I hope to be able to let my hon. Friend know before very long how the charge is made up.

EXPORTS.

Sir R. CLOUGH: 83.
asked the Secretary for Mines the average declared f.o.b. price of coal exported in March, 1913, in March, 1914, and in March, 1922?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The average declared value f.o.b. of coal exported from
the United Kingdom in March, 1913, was 13s. 8d. per ton; in March, 1914, 13s. 7d. per ton; and in March, 1922, 22s. 3d. per ton.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

BARAKAT PASHA.

Mr. MILLS: 89.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why letters from the sons of Barakat Pasha to him are prevented by the authorities from reaching him; why letters from him to his son at Birmingham University are also stopped; and is he aware that this gentleman has rendered distinguished service in the past administration of Egypt?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am not aware either that any correspondence transmitted through Lord Allenby to or from Fathallah Pasha Barakat has been stopped, or that the Pasha has been in a position to render distinguished service to the Egyptian Government.

ELWY EL GAZZAR BEY.

Mr. MILLS: 90.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it was under martial law that the authorities on 21st April last forcibly prevented everyone from entering the house of Elwy El Gazzar Bey at Shebin-el-Kom, including two doctors, Bassim Daoud Bey, chief medical officer of the Shebin-el-Kom Government hospital, and Dr. Abdul Hamid Fahmy, who were attending this gentleman's daughter for trachoma?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The reply is in the negative.

Mr. MILLS: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to verify the accuracy of this question before he says the reply is in the negative [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw:"]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

RAILWAY PASSENGER RATES, REDLINGTON.

Mr. CAIRNS: 76.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport if he is aware that the North Eastern Railway Company is charging three different rates for passengers from Bedlington to Newcastle-on-Tyne; is he aware that on Monday and Thursday the.
charge is 3s. 3d. return, on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday the charge is 4s. 1d., and on Saturday the charge is 4s. 4d.; and will he make representations to the company on the matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I am enquiring into the matter to which my hon. Friend calls attention, and will advise him of the result.

ROAD MATERIAL (FAIR-WAGES CLAUSE).

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: 77.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether he is aware that the firm of Shanks and M'Ewan is on the list of contractors of the middle ward of the county of Lanark for the supply of road material; that this firm is neither paying the recognised wages nor observing the hours of labour customary in the district; and whether he will take steps to secure proper observance of the Fair Wages Clause?

Mr. NEAL: I have no information showing that the firm named is executing any work in respect of which the Ministry of Transport is directly or indirectly concerned. If my hon. Friend will communicate to me any further particulars in his possession, I will give the matter consideration.

PRUDENTIAL ASSURANCE COMPANY (WAR-BOND POLICIES).

Mr. MYERS: 85.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is able to say whether the 442,662 War Bond policies issued by the Prudential Assurance Company, and classified as not taken up, had any deposits or premiums paid upon them; if so, to what amount; whether such deposits or premiums have been returned to the people concerned; whether he is able to state the amount of premiums paid upon 279,788 War Bond policies issued by the same company, and which have lapsed; and whether his Department is able to take any action that will enable the premiums so paid to be recovered?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): A report has been
furnished by the Prudential Assurance Company, Limited, from which it appears that no payments have been received from the proposers in respect of the 442,662 War Bond policies not taken up. With regard to the 279,788 lapsed policies, the holders of a large number of such policies have since obtained surrender values, or such policies have been revived without payment of the arrears by the assured on the terms that the policies have been extended over a period equal to the term for which the premiums had fallen into arrear. The company is not in a position to give the amount of the premiums received in respect of the lapsed policies which have not been surrendered or revived, but the average number of monthly premiums received in respect of such lapsed policies is approximately three.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

EDWARD CHARLES GRENFELL, Esquire, for the City of London.

POST OFFICE (PNEUMATIC TUBES ACQUISITION) [EXPENSES].

Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of moneys to be provided

by Parliament of expenditure incurred by the Postmaster-General under any Act of the present Session to confirm an agreement made between the Pneumatic Despatch Company, Limited, and the Postmaster-General for the acquisition by the Postmaster-General of a certain tube running between St. Martin's le Grand in the City of London and Eversholt Street, in the Metropolitan Borough of St. Pancras, and for purposes connected therewith — (King's Recommendation, signified)—To-morrow.—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That on this clay, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the Clock, and Proceedings in the Committee of Supply may be taken after Eleven of the Clock, and that the Proceedings of the Committee of Supply be exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

The House divided: Ayes, 252; Noes, 75.

Division No. 116.]
AYES.
[3.45 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Carew, Charles Robert S.
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.


Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.
Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
Forestier-Walker, L.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Casey, T. W.
Forrest, Waiter


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Cautley, Henry Strother
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Fraser, Major Sir Keith


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)
Frece, Sir Walter de


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill
Gange, E. Stanley


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Gardner, Ernest


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Clough, Sir Robert
Gee, Captain Robert


Barnston, Major Harry
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham


Barrand, A. R.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
G[...]mour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John


Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Glyn, Major Ralph


Beckett, Hon. G Br vase
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Goff, Sir R. Park


Bell, Lieut.-Col. w. C. H. (Devizes)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Grant, James Augustus


Be[...]airs, Commander Carlyon W.
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Green, Albert (Derby)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar


Bethell, Sir John Henry
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Greig, Colonel Sir James William


Betterton, Henry B.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Grenfell, E. C.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Gretton, Colonel John


Blair, Sir Reginald
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Gwynne, Rupert S.


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Hailwood. Augustine


Breese, Major Charles E.
Edge, Captain Sir William
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(L!v'p'l,W.D'by)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Ednam, Viscount
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.


Briggs, Harold
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)


Bruton, Sir James
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hayes, Hugh (Down, W.)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Evans, Ernest
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Alan Hughes
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Fa[...]e, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank


Hills, Major John Waller
Middlebrook, Sir William
Seager, Sir William


Hinds, John
Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.
Seddon, J. A.


Hood, Sir Joseph
Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Hope, Sir H.(Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn.W.)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Sharman-Crawford, Robert G.


Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
Morrison, Hugh
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Hopkins, John W. W.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Simm, M. T.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)


Hotchkln, Captain Stafford Vere
Murchison, C. K.
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


Hudson, R. M.
Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Hurd, Percy A.
Neal, Arthur
Stanton, Charles Butt


Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Stewart, Gershom


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Sturrock, J. Leng


Jephcott, A. R.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Jesson, C.
Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward
Sugden, W. H.


Jodrell, Neville Paul
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen.J. (Westminster)
Sutherland, Sir William


Johnstone, Joseph
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Jones, Henry Haydn, (Merioneth)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Taylor, J.


Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Ormsbv-Gore, Hon. William
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Hacket
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Kidd, James
Parker, James
Tickier, Thomas George


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Townley, Maximillan G.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers


Larmor, Sir Joseph
Percy, Charles (Tynemouth)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wallace, J.


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Perkins, Walter Frank
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Lindsay, William Arthur
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Pratt, John William
Waring, Major Walter


Lloyd, George Butler
Purchase, H. G.
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Lorden, John William
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
Wilson, Field-Marshal Sir Henry


Loseby, Captain C. E.
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)
Windsor, Viscount


Lowe, Sir Francis William
Reid, D. D.
Winterton. Earl


Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)
Remer, J. R.
Wise, Frederick


Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Remnant, Sir James
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Renwick, Sir George
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachle)
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


M'Lean, Lieut-Col. Charles W. W.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


McMicking, Major Gilbert
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Magnus, Sir Philip
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)



Mallalieu, Frederick William
Rodger, A. K.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Marks, Sir George Croydon
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
McCurdy.


Matthews, David




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Halls, Walter
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Banton, George
Hartshorn, Vernon
Robertson, John


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayday, Arthur
Royce, William Stapleton


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Sexton, James


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hirst, G. H.
Sitch, Charles H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Smith, w. R. (Wellingborough)


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Hogge, James Myles
Spoor, B. G.


Cairns, John
Holmes, J. Stanley
Sutton, John Edward


Cape, Thomas
Irving, Dan
Swan, J. E.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kennedy, Thomas
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitharoe)
Kenyon, Barnet
Waterson, A. E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lawson, John James
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Devlin, Joseph
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Wignall, James


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Finney, Samuel
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Galbraith, Samuel
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wintringham, Margaret


Gillis, William
Myers, Thomas
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Naylor, Thomas Ellis
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Raffan, Peter Wilson
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Rendall, Athelstan
Mr. Foot and Mr. Mills.


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

CANALS (CONTINUANCE OF CHARGING POWERS) BILL.

Reported without Amendment, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to he printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow.

LUNACY BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 133.]

WHALE FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) (AMENDMENT) BILL.

Reported, without Amendment, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next.

OXFORD AND ST. ALBANS WINE PRIVILEGES (ABOLITION) BILL,

Reported, without Amendment, from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,

Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Guildford." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Guildford Extension) Bill [Lords.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (GUILDFORD EXTENSION) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 134.]

ADOPTION OF CHILDREN BILL,

"to make further provision for the adoption of children by suitable persons," presented by Mr. REGINALD NICHOLSON; supported by Mr. Hopkins, Mr. Inskip, and Sir Robert Newman; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 135.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Sir Robert Clough; and had appointed in substitution: Colonel Roundel].

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee A (in respect. of the Chartered Associations (Protection of Names and Uniforms) Bill [Lords], the Bread Acts Amendment Bill, and the Gaming Bill [Lords]): Mr. C. D. Murray, Sir John Baird, Colonel Sir James Greig, Mr. Hailwood, Mr. Inskip, Mr. Leonard Lyle, Mr. Neil Maclean, Mr. Murchison, Lord Eustace Percy, Mr. Seddon, Mr. Shortt, Mr. Alfred Short, Mr. Sturrock, Mr. Waterson, and Mr. Charles White.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B (during the consideration of the Law of Property Bill [Lords]): Mr. Briant, Mr. Kenyon, and Sir Alexander Sprot; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Foot, Mr. Hayward, and Mr. Reid.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Law of Property Bill [Lords]): Mr. Betterton, Sir Thomas Bramsdon, Mr. Ernest Evans, Mr. William Graham, Colonel Sir James Greig, Mr. Hartshorn, Major Hills, Mr. Dennis Herbert, Mr. Hohler, Lieut.-Colonel Hurst, Mr. Pretyman, Sir Leslie Scott, Lieut.-Colonel John Ward, Colonel Wedgwood, and Lieut.-Colonel Sir Rhys Williams.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Mr. Frederick Green; and had appointed in substitution: Major John Edwards.

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Major John Edwards and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Casey.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[9TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir EDWIN CORNWALL in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — NAVY ESTIMATES, 1922–23.

WORKS, BUILDINGS, AND REPAIRS, AT HOME AND ABROAD.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding£3,483,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at home and abroad, including the cost of Superintendence, Purchase of Sites, Grants-in-Aid, and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, in addition to a sum of £790,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £12,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Commander Eyres-Monsell): In making the customary statement on the introduction of Vote 10, I hope the Committee will find that my remarks will be as brief as my demands are going to be modest. Before I come to the figures, I wish to dissipate two erroneous ideas I find very commonly held with regard to this Vote. The first is that because this Vote deals chiefly with such mundane materials as bricks and mortar, it must be a very dull subject. I can only say, as one who temporarily has something to do with the administration of this Vote, that I find it intensely interesting. We deal with and we provide everything for the requirements of the Navy, from the largest engineering undertaking to the smallest building repair, in almost every part of the world. We deal in everything from docks to door handles, from barracks to washhand basins, and the area over which we work extends from Wei-hai-wei in the North to the Cape of Good Hope in the South; from Jamaica and the Falklands in the West to Singapore and Hong Kong in the East; and to me this world interest invests even bricks and mortar with a certain amount of glamour.
The second error to which I have alluded is a far more important one. There is a widespread belief that expenditure under
this Vote is not essential for the primary purpose of the Navy, and that it absorbs money which might be more profitably devoted to the fighting efficiency of the Fleet in other directions of the Naval Service. If I may say so, I think this is the right line that any criticism should take, that no expenditure on this Vote should detract from the fighting efficiency of the Fleet, and that is the test which I always apply to every single item of expenditure that comes before me on this Vote. This general belief is entirely wrong, because you cannot divide expenditure under this Vote from that incurred for the general needs of the Navy. What we provide forms an integral and vital part of the Navy both in personnel and material.
Take personnel. We have to build and provide the educational establishments and colleges at which the men are trained. We have to build and provide the barracks in which they are housed; and we have to build and provide the hospitals to which they are taken when they are sick. We have to build and maintain the slips on which to build the ships, and the docks and the locks in which they are repaired; we have to build and maintain the workshops in which the repairs are carried out; we have to lay down railways and provide roads to serve those ships and workshops; and we have to build and provide piers and jetties, and, by dredging, ensure the correct depth of water for the ever increasing draught of our ships.
4.0 P.M.
We have to build and maintain workshops, storehouses and magazines for the thousand and one articles without which the ships would be useless; guns, ammunition, torpedoes, mines, depth charges, and stores of every description. Further we have to provide fuel installations—and this is probably the most important item we have to provide at the present moment—to replenish our ships not only at home but all over the world; and we have to build wireless telegraphy stations to communicate with our ships. I hope I have indicated enough of our activities to show the Committee that we provide for the integral needs of the Navy and that the Fleet could not come into being or exist without us. The amount which I am going to ask the Committee to provide for the purposes I have roughly outlined for the financial year 1922–23 is £4,273,000. Last
year this House voted £5,836,600, but to that I must add a Supplementary Estimate of £10,000 which we got through later in the year, so that, comparing the gross Vote this year with the gross Vote of last year, I can show a decrease of £1,573,600, which, if you take the percentage, is a very considerable amount on the total involved. I want the Admiralty, and particularly my Department, to get the credit for the great majority of this reduction, because the great majority of the cut was made before the Committee on National Expenditure was ever heard of. As long ago as June last year we had cut this Vote down to £4,756,000, and this was the Estimate which we presented to the Geddes Committee. The Admiralty have always been willing to co-operate with that Committee or any Committee to effect reductions in expenditure, and we met that Committee and made a further reduction of £483,000.
This further reduction was not made without a great deal of effort, and it was made, in four ways. First, by not proceeding with various items that were approved by this House last year and which we thought we could really do without in these trying times. Secondly, by going slow with various continuation services where the adoption of that method did not involve too great expense. In some cases it might involve too great an expense for the saving made at the moment. Thirdly, by postponing many undertakings entered into for the improvement of the living conditions of naval ratings while serving on shore. I regret very much not being able to go on with some of these welfare items, and I hope that the House, when times are more propitious and money is more easily available, will support me or my successor in trying to get some of these welfare items that really are so desirable. The fourth means by which we made that cut was by drastically cutting down new works and concentrating only on those services absolutely necessary in the interests of safety and health.
The Geddes Committee, in their Report on that Vote, which is not a very long one, recommended that no new works of any description whatsoever should be undertaken this year. The Admiralty could not possibly recom-
mend that course to the House, because it would be the most false economy imaginable. I do not know whether many hon. Members, like myself, since the War, have taken a great deal more interest in such subject as re-soling one's boots and shoes. If they have, they will have learned, like myself, that you can allow a hole in the outer sole to go to a certain length, but directly it goes too far the shoe becomes useless and you have to buy a new pair.

Major-General SEELY: And a new pair of socks, too.

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: That is equally true of nearly all the small amount of new work which I am asking the Committee to provide for in these Estimates. It will, I think, interest the Committee, more than anything else, to have a comparison with the pre-War Vote of 1914–15. To take an exact comparison between the expenditure to-day and the expenditure just before the War, I must explain that there are certain annual charges and obligations to the total value of £1,358,431, which, although relating to services carried out, or to grants approved in past years, have been provided for. This sum is made up of redemption of rent charges on branch railways, £1,013, of recurring grants-in-aid £13,011, and—this is by far the biggest item—of an annuity in repayment of advances under Naval Works Acts, 1885 to 1895, which the Committee will find under Sub-head O in the Estimates, amounting to £1,344,407. Those three items make a total of £1,358,431, and we must deduct them to get the effective expenditure of this year.

Commander BELLAIRS: There are also certain War charges.

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: I am coming to those in a moment. We thus get a figure of £2,914,569. To be quite fair, we must add an appropriation-in-aid of £75,000, but we are also, I think, entitled to deduct charges arising directly out of the War amounting to £80,700. Making these allowances, we get a figure of £2,908,869, which is the anticipated effective expenditure on naval works in 1922–23. By applying exactly the same corrections to the Vote in 1914-15, we can compare the net effective totals, and they are as follow: 1914–15, £2,306,422; 1922–23, £2,908,869. That shows an increase of
only 26 per cent., and, when the Committee take into consideration, as they must, the fact that nearly all the works that we do under this Vote are costing us in the neighbourhood of 140 per cent. more than they did, on the average, in 1914, I think they will admit that the provision I am now asking for has been based on the lines of moderation and economy.
I want to say one word before I sit down about the question of oil. The small increase of 26 per cent. that I have explained to the Committee does not accurately represent the economies that we have really made, for over one-third of the total effective expenditure this year is incurred for oil fuel storage, installations, a service for which we had to provide only a small sum in pre-War days. It is practically a new service, though an absolutely vital service for the Fleet. The amount we are asking for this year is £1,007,400, and represents the lowest possible figure to which we have been able to reduce it. I do hope that the Committee will not press me for any reduction in this item. They must remember that the safeguarding of the British Empire and the policing of the ocean may depend no longer upon great numerical superiority. They depend to-day on the efficiency of our Fleet. One of the first necessities of efficiency is mobility, and one of the first essentials for mobility are oil tanks all over the world where our ships may go. I hope the Committee will support the Admiralty in this matter. I do not propose at this stage to go into any details, but I will reply later to any questions that may arise during the Debate. I maintain that we have taken to heart that oft repeated injunction to cut our coat according to our cloth. We have made every endeavour to reduce this Vote. I am not so foolish as to say that it is incapable of still further pruning, but we have not been able to find any legitimate means, and I shall be much obliged if hon. Members of this Committee can supply some means of doing so.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £1,000.
I believe the Committee will understand me when I say that I would rather be defending this Estimate than attacking it. The position of the hon. and gallant Gentleman is a more grateful one for one who has served in the Service, as I have. Nevertheless, I do feel that the pious
aspirations explained by the hon. and gallant Gentleman have not been quite fully carried out in this Vote. He said that the test of expenditure should be the necessity of the Navy, and that nothing should detract from its fighting efficiency. I have had the honour of taking part in one or two Debates on the Navy Estimates, and I have always tried to make it clear that we should scrutinise every penny of the expenditure from the sole standpoint of the fighting efficiency of the Fleet. The Navy is not a charitable organisation. It does not exist to give work in certain parts of the country. I speak of this matter with some trepidation, as I am surrounded by hon. Gentlemen who represent those parts of the country which have great dockyards situated in them. I want to accept the invitation of my hon. and gallant Friend and tell him where I think money could be saved without-detracting one iota from the fighting efficiency of the Fleet. After the War, the Admiralty were faced with a very serious and difficult problem, and that was the problem of the dockyards. Every war in which we have taken part has produced its own particular dockyards, and, after the war, they have been left as heritages of that war, and in some cases have not been required for the new grouping in which we have found ourselves. As an example, the Dutch wars produced Chatham. They produced the expansion of Chatham, Plymouth, that great and excellent harbour—

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: Devonport.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. Member for Devonport must I forgive me if I refer to it by its historic name. The Spanish wars led to the expansion of the naval establishments of Plymouth. The French wars led to the; great expansion of our most ancient dockyard, Portsmouth. The German menace and war led to the building and the expansion of the great Scottish dockyard of Rosyth. After this War, it was obvious to anyone that the strategical situation had altered completely, and that, whereas the Navy had a North Sea alinement up to the outbreak of the late War, if it were to have an alinement of that sort—and it is the only means of having a Navy—it must be towards the Far East and West in the Atlantic. Take the case of two of these dockyards
Chatham and Rosyth. They are not placed suitably for the new naval conditions in which we find ourselves. I am not referring to these ports with the object of drawing hon. Members who represent them in this House. I am trying to face facts and to explain the problem which the Admiralty are confronted with. If these great establishments—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not know how far the hon. Member has it in his mind to go. This is the only opportunity hon. Members have to discuss the detailed expenditure in connection with works and buildings; it is not the occasion for discussing the general policy of the Admiralty.

Mr. G. LAMBERT: Surely it is absolutely within order and according to precedent that the policy of the Admiralty which involves these works should be discussed on this Vote.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not the point. I was asking the hon. and gallant Member how far his argument was directed to general policy, and I was pointing out that this is not the occasion for a general discussion on the naval policy of the Admiralty.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not wish to discuss questions of general policy on this Vote. I was pointing out certain expenditure on the dockyards which I consider is bad expenditure. A policy I thought should have been adopted, which would have meant the rapid closing down, as far as possible, of those dockyards which were considered redundant, and therefore, whichever they were, all items involving this spending of money—and these items are scattered over all the dockyards, and there seems to be no question of spending a little more here or a little less there—I was pointing out that until the Admiralty can make up their mind on this great problem, real economy in dockyard expenditure will be impossible. May I return at once to the question of detail. I hesitate to refer again to the case of the dockyard at Pembroke. That question has been raised in many quarters in this House, and yet we are asked in this Vote to spend a sum of £1,600 on
part of an extension involving an expenditure of £228,000 in a dockyard which the Admiralty themselves have condemned.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: On a point of Order. This Vote is for certain works, buildings, and repairs at home and abroad. This is not the occasion to discuss the policy of the Government in regard to dockyards, which, I submit, comes under an entirely different Vote, and I would urge that the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull is entirely out of order in now referring to the case of Pembroke Dockyard.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On page 137 of the Navy Estimates there is an item with regard to Pembroke Dockyard which I propose to examine.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Yes, there is an item of expenditure on Pembroke Dockyard. There are also other items connected with other dockyards. I do not think on this Vote for works and buildings we can have a general discussion with regard to dockyards like Portsmouth and Rosyth and matters of this sort. This is not the occasion on which to decide policy in regard to any dockyard, Pembroke or any other. I do not say I would object to hon. Members making reference to expenditure in particular dockyards, but it would not be in order to have a general discussion on dockyards.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: While agreeing entirely with the view of my hon. and gallant Friend opposite the Member for Devonport (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) that the general policy of the Navy cannot be called into question on this Vote, may I submit that if there is, for instance, a certain amount of money being spent on certain dockyards, and if there are, as is well known to hon. Members, rumours about particular expenditure in Pembroke Dockyard, surely the question of a particular expenditure in a particular dockyard for a particular reason, even though it be of a political character, is a matter which it is desirable should be brought out quite clearly. I submit with very great deference on that particular point that it is within the rules of order, and it is better it should be discussed on this Committee stage, where my hon. and gallant Friend can answer questions, rather than that the subject should be interposed in a great general discussion.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: But the Minister in charge of policy is not here. The Minister in charge of these items of expenditure on works, buildings and repairs is here for the purpose of giving the Committee information on those proposals., I have pointed out that there is an item of £1,600 for expenditure on Pembroke Dockyard, and if that is discussed Members must confine themselves to that particular item, and not cover the whole question.

Captain Viscount CURZON: As I hope to take part in the Debate later on, and as you, Sir, tell us that questions of policy must not be discussed on this Vote, of course I bow to your ruling, but there is the question to come up of oil fuel installation, and I want to point out it is impossible to discuss that in any form on this Vote without opening up somewhat wide questions of policy.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord is quite right, and it will be for the Chairman to use his discretion during the course of the Debate.

Dr. MURRAY: Would it not be in order to show reasons why Pembroke Dockyard is useless for any further purpose, and that it is wrong to spend any more money upon it?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We can only discuss that in relation to this Vote of £1,600, and in so far as hon. Members introduce arguments on the question they must apply them to the £1,600 which it is proposed to spend. Then they will be in order.

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: May I point out that the hon. Gentleman who represents the Admiralty in this House, the First Lord being in another place, can give us his views of policy?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I want to ask a question about the £1,600 to be expended on Pembroke Dockyard. Here is a dockyard maintained admittedly on sufferance. I do not want to touch even the policy concerned. The dockyard is being kept alive not for naval purposes but because of the community which has grown up around it, because of the money spent on waterworks, gasworks, roads, and so on. This £1,600 Hwy be attacked in all parts of the House. If it were just for ordinary upkeep it
would be an entirely different matter, but it is for an extension of new works, and I think the House should be given not only details of the expenditure but some justification for it. It is pointed out that the total amount involved up to the 31st March last was no less a sum than £238,200. I think this extension should have been stopped long since, because the Admiralty stated after the Armistice that, for naval purposes, Pembroke was no longer required. I daresay some explanation will be forthcoming of this expenditure. There are one or two other items I would like to ask about, and I will stick strictly to details. First of all, with regard to Portsmouth. We have an item for a motor garage. I would remind hon. Members of the statement made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who introduced this Estimate that every penny was for the fighting efficiency of the Fleet. May I ask why a motor garage is necessary at Portsmouth in these times of financial stringency, when the Fleet is not getting the right men, and the men are not getting sea training? May I ask why it should be thought necessary to spend money on a motor garage at Portsmouth? I do not want to take up the very narrow view that it is not necessary to have motor transport. If you are going to have these vast shore establishments I suppose the Admiralty can make a good case for having motor garages, but in this year, 1922, to spend a sum of something like £12,500 for this purpose does not seem reasonable. To my knowledge there are any number of sheds and buidings at Portsmouth which could be well utilised for this purpose, and it would not cost very much to turn one of them into a garage quite suitable for dockyard purposes. Then I should like to get an assurance with regard to another very large item at Portsmouth, and that is in respect of expenditure on the "Vernon" torpedo establishment. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) and many other naval officers did duty on the "Vernon" for many years and know the value of the training which was given on her. It was necessary to transfer the school to a shore establishment. I see that a sum of £662,000 is being spent on that establishment. That sounds to be exorbitant, and
I notice there is another item of £160,000 for machinery. There are many Members of this House who have been over the "Vernon" when she was fitted with torpedo machinery and did excellent work, but how on earth this sum of nearly one million pounds—at any rate, over £800,000—can be spent without gross extravagance on a shore establishment I cannot understand, and I invite explanation from the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Major Sir B. FALLE: Has the hon. and gallant Member noticed that £486,000 has already been spent?

Lieut.-Commander KBNWORTHY: That is so, but we are continuing the expenditure on this school. Naturally I took the total cost, and I think a great deal of extravagance must have been indulged in on this building. In view of the known financial position of the country and the need for saving every available penny we can on the Navy without loss of efficiency, I invite an explanation on this expenditure. I may perhaps be permitted here to throw in another observation. There seems to be a growing belief in the Admiralty that you can make not only sailors and torpedo men, but gunners also in shore establishments. That is a total fallacy. The only place you can do it is afloat, and I think it right therefore to criticise very closely indeed any expenditure on shore torpedo establishments. I regret very much that expenditure is also going on at Rosyth—not in maintenance, not in providing work for the men who are there, through no fault of their own, and find themselves in a difficult position, and whom we cannot absolutely cast out, but on new works and extensions. To spend that money on a purely North Sea dockyard seems to me to be an extraordinary policy to pursue after what has happened in the last few years.
I now come to a different item altogether, namely, the expenditure which the Admiralty are incurring upon the very romantic project of the towers which are at present moored at Shoreham. I refer to the expenditure of £17,700 under the heading of, "Defence Works (M.N. Scheme)." The history of these towers is, as I have said, very romantic. During the unique conditions of the late War, in
which we were caught napping as regards the German submarine menace, it was necessary, at all costs, to find some means of preventing German submarines from running through the Straits of Dover, and someone hit upon the idea of making concrete and steel towers which could be towed out and sunk on certain selected sandbanks in the Channel. On those towers were to be mounted searchlights and guns, and they were also to be equipped with listening apparatus—hydrophones—for detecting submarines, and with firing apparatus for exploding the minefields through which the submarines might be passing. This was very good from the point of view of the War, but, unfortunately, it was hit upon rather too late. The Armistice came, and I believe that none of these towers have been so far completed as to be actually used, and the Admiralty were faced with the question what was to be done with them. I am afraid that this was one of those schemes which gave rise in the Admiralty to a separate Department, with its own permanent staff, and they brought forward very good reasons for continuing the construction of these towers. They have cost, to date, £1,162,000, and the total amount which it is proposed to spend on them is, apparently, £1,180,000, of which we are asked this year for 217,700. May I respectfully ask what these towers are really going to be used for? It is no use saying that they are wanted for hydrophone experiments, because such experiments can be carried out from the shore, and for all practical purposes a concrete tower is no different, whether it is on dry land or fixed on a sandbank with a few feet of water round its base. Are they to be used for night-firing tests? I submit that such tests can be just as well carried out from the shore. Are they going to be used as lighthouses, as I have seen suggested in the Press? In the meantime, why are they at Shoreham spoiling the beautiful little harbour and annoying the local inhabitants? The additional expenditure on these towers—I think that this expenditure on the M.N. Scheme is for these towers—is a wicked waste of money, and I would suggest that we set to work to get rid of them. Blow them up, or tow them out to sea and sink them, but do not go on spending money on these costly white elephants. Their only possible use was in the unique conditions of the late War. I do not
know how it is proposed to use them in any future war. Is it proposed to tow them out to Singapore or Bermuda and use them there? I cannot conceive of their ever being used in the Channel for the purpose of keeping German submarines from running through the Straits of Dover.
I am going now to make one last suggestion for economy, and here I shall turn to a friendly encounter between the Parliamentary Secretary and myself on the question of Jamaica. We are asked to spend £60,000 on an oil fuel depot at Jamaica. With the remarks of the Civil Lord about the necessity for oil fuel stations at the right places, for purposes of mobility, I quite agree, but in peace time we do not need an oil fuel depot at Jamaica. In war time, if we are allied with the United States, we shall still not need it, because we can get all the oil we want from Key West, or others of the magnificent American naval bases; while if we were engaged in a war in which the United States was hostile to us, we should not be able to use Jamaica, because it is so far inside the Gulf of Mexico that, without such a preponderating increase of force as we are never likely to get, as far as I can see, we should not be able to keep up our communications with Jamaica. In saying that, I am giving away no naval secret, because everyone knows it. I have raised this question before, and the Parliamentary Secretary has replied, "I am talking about dockyard expenditure, and Jamaica is not a dockyard." It is, however, an oil fuel depot, and we are spending money on an oil fuel depot which, I submit, will never be needed in war except in the one war in which it cannot be used. I do not think that whoever advised this expenditure on Jamaica could have considered the position from the point of view of strategy. I suppose they said, "Here is a nice British Colony in the West Indies, which has been used as a dockyard for hundreds of years, and, of course, that must be the place to have an oil fuel depot." I am afraid that a good deal of Admiralty expenditure in the past, and, I am sorry to say, also in the present, has been, and is being incurred on those lines. It shows a lack of co-ordination between the Naval staff and the Departments responsible for the erection of these works. I repeat that there are economies which can still be made, if the Admiralty will be courageous,
without detracting from the efficiency of the Fleet, and I feel this so strongly, particularly with regard to this question of Jamaica, that I now move to reduce the Vote by £1,000.

Commander BELLAIRS: The Civil Lord of the Admiralty made a most interesting speech, which was full of both imagination and ingenuity, and which had the extreme merit of being about the shortest speech ever made by any Minister in introducing Estimates. He said that his subject had glamour. It ranged from Wei-hai-Wei to Sydney, from the Falkland Islands to Rosyth, and that is the trouble of bringing imagination to bear upon it. One can always discover key positions and put up works such as those which have been referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). You have, for instance, oil fuel depots here, there and everywhere. There are no less than twenty-two places provided for in these Estimates where we not putting up oil fuel depots. It is not only glamour that is associated with this Vote, but a good deal of clamour as well. The clamour comes from Wales in regard to Pembroke, and from Scotland in regard to Rosyth and Greenock. That is very undesirable indeed. The general body of Members ought to assemble for the purpose of putting down projects such as further expenditure at Pembroke or other redundant Government dockyards. I will go through some of the items of this Vote, taking one of the smallest first. There is an item of £500 for Wei-hai-Wei, and I want to ask my hon. and gallant Friend whether we have not agreed at the Washington Conference to give up Wei-hai-Wei, and whether he will not get some money in from China, in connection with the sale of effects at Wei-hai-Wei, which will come to the assistance of this Vote and which is not mentioned in the Grant-in-Aid?
On page 132c of the Estimates, I find that we have resuscitated Keyham Engineering College at a cost of £31,000, and that brings me to the question how intimately associated policy is with this Vote. We allowed Keyham College to go downhill on the ground that it was no longer required, because a great admiral, Lord Fisher, introduced a scheme of training which turned out to be an absolute failure. We have now had to come back to the old scheme and put the
engineers back at Keyham College, and we have to spend £31,000 on Keyham College in order to rehabilitate it. On the same page I look at Greenock and find that there is a torpedo factory there which, with machinery, is to be extended at a cost of £83,000. How has that come about? First of all, the Admiralty enters into a policy of building torpedoes in rivalry with private works at Weymouth, and then they give nearly all their order to that Government establishment. The result is disastrous. They drive the private establishment out of business altogether, and we lose all the foreign orders associated with that kind of establishment; and now the Admiralty have to come to us to extend the Government establishments because they have driven the private firms out of business altogether.
Then there is the item of the "Vernon," to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull referred, and on which there is a total expenditure with machinery of £826,000. Considering that we have these separate torpedo training establishments at different ports, and that they will come along later on for bricks-and-mortar establishments, I do think we ought to question this and see if we cannot prune down that stupendous figure of £826,000 for a single torpedo training establishment. I agree that the old "Vernon" was insanitary, that it was utterly unfit for its work, and that this ought to have been done years ago. If it had been done years ago it would have been done much more cheaply, because building costs would not have been so great. On page 142 there is an expenditure, including machinery, of £249,000 for Rosyth. I notice that the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) has on the Paper a reduction of £1,000 on this Vote, so I presume that he is dissatisfied that we are still spending money on Rosyth where he can study extravagance at close quarters. At any rate, I hope he is, because it would be a great thing if we could get the Scottish Members to come and protest against extending this dockyard. The total sum under Vote 10 is £4,273,000, and I have performed the same calculation as my hon. and gallant Friend, except that I made the comparison with 1913. After adding grants-in-aid and deducting war
charges, annuity, and redemption of borrowed money, I make the annual sum that he has to account for £2,941,000, of which, as he pointed out, over one-third goes on oil. That is £699,000 more, if similar deductions are made, than in 1913, when we were preparing for a definite war with Germany. Now we have the advantage of all the tremendous expenditure of the War, and yet the expenditure is practically £700,000 more than it was in 1913. I am utterly unable to account for that. It is perfectly true that we have over one-third for oil. The Civil Lord said that it was a very small sum in pre-War days, but I do not think it was. He seems to have forgotten the great expenditure of £590,000 on oil for Rosyth in pre-War days, and £95,000 on oil for the Humber.
I acknowledge that the expenditure on oil was not as great as it is to-day, but, coming to this question of oil, I find that there is £300,000 for Singapore, and £162,000 for Rangoon. I do not question that, because probably the naval battles of the future will be fought in the Pacific if we do have another naval war, which I profoundly hope will never be the case. I would, however, ask the Admiralty, with regard to these places and to the other 20 places—there are 22 in all—was it not possible to go to the great shipping companies and other private interests, and see if we could not build up these resources by means of subsidies, so that the mercantile marine would develop as well, now that it is taking to oil? I come to another interesting point. At all these 22 places where we are building up oil resources—Sierra Leone, Ceylon, the Falkland Islands, Jamaica, which was mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull, and so on—you cannot stop at putting the oil there; you must put defences there as well. I ventured to point out, when we were proposing to lay the Pacific cable to Fanning Island, how undesirable it was to proceed without providing for defences. I pointed out that that cable would be the only cable to be cut during the War and that it ought to land at Honolulu. It was the only cable cut during the War, because there were no defence works. You cannot escape that point that you have to consider far more than the actual expenditure. You have to consider the defence works as well and then is it
worth while? Is it desirable that now, in a time of profound peace, we should scatter these oil enterprises as Government enterprises, solely for the use of the Navy in a conjectural war, when in all probability we can, by associating ourselves with the mercantile marine, secure all we want for the future. Unless I get some satisfactory explanation, I cannot accept the Civil Lord's view that they have been pruned almost to the bone. I do not think they have and in that case I shall be forced to support the reduction.

Mr. LAMBERT: The Civil Lord has introduced these Estimates in a most admirable speech. One of the great advantages the Admiralty have in these days is that they are represented by such accomplished Parliamentarians, and that disarms a good deal of possibly hostile opinion. But when my hon. Friend claims credit for the great economies which have been made, I must remind him of something which the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down has put his finger on, and that is that before the War an enormous expense was being incurred annually on building the great Rosyth Dockyard and other defences on the East Coast in view of the German menace. If no Washington Conference had occurred this Vote must have been a great deal larger, because the Admiralty were proposing to build ships which could not have been laid down in the dockyard at all. But I want to call attention to the enormous number of establishments which are being maintained—establishments started by the Admiralty—and I cannot but contend that this is a wrong policy. It is a most wasteful thing to have an enormous number of small establishments all over the world. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down said they had to be defended. It is not a question only of building these places, but they must be watched, and in these Estimates we are being asked to vote money for shore establishments which ought not to be wanted. The Geddes Committee warned the Government that on this Vote there were shore establishments which were not required in these days. They very clearly put the point that the men who were occupied in these shore establishments do not add to the fighting efficiency of the Fleet. You have a number of men whom
I have heard described as more or less parasites. Also you are spending considerable sums of money on police accommodation in this Vote. These shore establishments are the very things which eat up police accommodation. There again the Geddes Committee showed very clearly that the Metropolitan Police, for whom this Vote provides the money to build cottages, are very expensive. Why cannot you guard your establishments without the aid of this very expensive force? You have now got 1,665 Metropolitan Police, compared with 1,347 before the War. Why should you have to provide accommodation in these Estimates for 300 more men, especially as the Fleet is being greatly reduced? I do not understand it. I should like to have an explanation why we are providing for building accommodation for the Metropolitan Police when the Geddes Committee said quite clearly that you have too many police already.
Then this is a most amazing thing in contra-distinction to the Geddes Committee—the question of an addition to the torpedo factory at Greenock. Why should you want to add to the torpedo factory at Greenock? It goes absolutely contrary to what the Geddes Committee recommended. The Geddes Committee have told the House and the country that the Admiralty have an excess of torpedoes at present. They say we have a stock of 21-inch torpedoes valued approximately at £10,000,000, and there are 3,000 others of an older type valued at £4,500,000. Why on earth should the House be asked to sanction the extension of the torpedo factory at Greenock when we have this enormous lot of torpedoes?

Sir B. FALLE: They are out of date.

Mr. LAMBERT: No. They are not out of date. There have been no ships built which would not take the torpedoes which the Geddes Committee value at £10,000,000. I ask my hon. Friend to give some information about this because it is very important. Why should you extend this Government establishment when you have already £15,000,000 worth of torpedoes in store? Surely there must be something wrong. The Geddes Committee have been very accurate in all their figures despite the Financial Secretary's animadversions
on their accuracy and we may take these figures as accurate. We should never have had them had it not been for the Geddes Committee and we should never have been able to apply this criticism to the Greenock Torpedo Factory. I observe that there is an Estimate for the Holton Heath Cordite Factory. Is there any co-ordination with the Army in this matter? Are they each going to have separate establishments for manufacturing cordite? These are questions which from the point of view of the taxpayer one has the right and the duty to ask.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down has put the point about oil fuel installations. Why should you at this moment, when everything is at its dearest and everything to do with building is extremely dear, make a rush to establish oil fuel establishments all over the world when you have been told by the Cabinet that you need not prepare for war for 10 years? I observe that new works are going to be commenced at several outlying places. I would ask further what sort of oil fuel installations do you propose to erect. Are they of the gasometer type such as have been erected round this country, because if you erect these gasometers, say, at Singapore or Rangoon or the Falkland Islands how are you going to defend them? What is to prevent a hostile submarine coming and shelling them? You are asking an enormous sum of money to erect these oil fuel tanks in all the outlying parts of the Globe where they cannot be defended, and next, I assume, we shall have Votes for their defence. I ask the Admiralty to pause in this matter. The Geddes Committee asked them to pause in the erection of these oil fuel tanks all over the world. Have the Admiralty taken into consideration not only shelling by submarines but bombing from aeroplanes? Are you quite sure that your present system, which answered during the late War, of building these great gasometers full of oil will answer in the future? I cannot help thinking there is a very great danger that these big steel shells, containing enormous quantities of oil and exposed to the air, will be attacked by aeroplanes, as they certainly could be attacked by submarines. The Government should try to imagine that there is a taxpayer outside who is very heavily
burdened, and the chief cause of complaint when you go to the country is the heavy taxation he has to pay.
There are very large sums of money here for the upkeep of docks. The Geddes Committee said quite clearly that the dockyards were at present excessive. Why do you spend more money on keeping up redundant dockyards? I do not propose to go into the question of Pembroke. The Pembroke people have made a very wise choice, inasmuch as they have selected, I believe, the son of the Prime Minister as their future representative. I think it shows a great deal of business acumen on their part. But I want to ask the Civil Lord whether he is carrying out in this Vote the recommendation of the Geddes Committee with regard to Gibraltar. The Geddes Committee recommended that Gibraltar should be brought down to a care-and-maintenance basis. You are spending money on the reconstruction of the dockyard in Gibraltar to-day, and you are spending enormous sums on oil fuel altogether. Are you going against the Geddes Committee in these matters? Do you propose to keep the dock at Gibraltar up to its pre-War standard? The Geddes Committee have asked you not to spend money there, but to reduce the Vote. You are spending more money on new works at Gibraltar. Again, what is the object of building new houses for working men at Rosyth? "Buildings to be removed and re-erected, housing subordinate officers and working men." Why put up these buildings if the men will not be required Again, "housing accommodation for the police—and that is a new service—£31,000." Why should you spend £31,000 on housing the police at Rosyth when Rosyth must eventually be very greatly reduced? My hon. Friend said he was very sorry, indeed, that they had had to neglect welfare work. You need not have neglected welfare work for the Fleet. You could have saved money here. I understand that at Rosyth, actually within the last six months, land has been feud permanently for building other houses.

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The Scottish Housing Council.

5.0 P. M.

Mr. LAMBERT: The Scottish Housing Council. Are they doing the work on
their own responsibility? When I was at the Admiralty we helped the Scottish Housing Council. I think it was a public utility society then. If the Scottish Housing Society is carrying out building for the Admiralty, more money ought to be in this Vote. If you have another Department doing part of your work, by erecting houses for you, you should provide for it on this Vote.

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman point out where the point he is raising is included in the Vote?

Mr. LAMBERT: On page 142 there is an item for housing subordinate officers and workmen, £39,000; expenditure up to 31st March this year, £22,000; to be voted 1922–23, £17,000.

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: I am referring to the land.

Mr. LAMBERT: Recently I was informed that land was feud about six months ago for building houses at Rosyth. Feud means that it is a permanent let to the Admiralty or some Government Department. The Scottish Housing Council would not take this land for building houses upon it unless it was required by the Admiralty. I am sorry to be critical, but one has to be critical. The country cannot stand the taxation; that is why I am critical. There is provision for numerous new works at Chatham. The Geddes Committee recommended that Rosyth and Chatham should be reduced. Is the Admiralty quite certain that Chatham is a dockyard upon which a large amount of money should be spent for new work? Are they quite certain that it cannot be bombed from the Continent? Are they quite certain that the whole strategic position of Chatham has not been changed. I have asked these questions over and over again, and I cannot get an answer. I hope that in the erection of all these buildings the Admiralty have taken into account the immense possibilities of aircraft in the future. It is said that aircraft can come and bomb London, and if they can bomb London they can certainly bomb Chatham. If my hon. Friend goes to a division I shall support him.

Viscount CURZON: I should like to support what has been said by the
previous speakers in relation to the dockyards. The Chair has given a ruling this afternoon which makes it very difficult to discuss the question of dockyards from the point of view of general policy as one would like to do; but there are one or two items in this Vote for certain dockyards to which I wish particularly to refer. A sum of £1,600 is to be spent at Pembroke. Of what possible use or value to the Navy in the future can Pembroke dockyard be? Cannot the Admiralty, without giving an indication of their general policy in regard to dockyards, give some idea of what use Pembroke dockyard is to the Navy? If it is little or no use to the Navy, why spend £1,600 upon it? It does not matter whether it is £1,600 or 1,600 pence; why spend it upon this dockyard? We all hope, at any rate those of us who are keen on economy, that this dockyard will be put an end to at the earliest possible moment. I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull did not move a reduction of the Vote to the full extent of the £1,600 which it is proposed to devote to Pembroke.
I should like to know what expenditure is required for dredging the Medway in order to get a proper depth of water to enable Chatham dockyard to be used by the class of ships that use that dockyard. There are sums in the Vote relating to Sheerness. I understood some time ago that Sheerness had been closed down, and yet I see that further sums are to be spent upon Sheerness dockyard. Are we going to keep Sheerness dockyard going? If not, why are we asked to spend further money upon Sheerness? I cannot quite follow the previous speakers in their remarks with regard to Rosyth. At Rosyth we have the most modern dockyard, with the most modern machinery, at the disposal of the Navy, and the only docks that can take the poet-Jutland ship, the "Hood." There is one omission in regard to Rosyth that is rather significant. I think an omission is as suspicious as anything that is put down in the Vote. What is happening at Port Edgar in the Rosyth area? I can not find any money allocated to it. Port Edgar was supposed to be a destroyer base. I believe it is still used by destroyers. It was made during the War, and requires a great deal of dredging in order to make it possible
for destroyers to use the dockyard. It is always silting up. Is any money being spent at Port Edgar? Can we have any information as to the amount of money that is being spent on dredging there? When you have a dockyard which requires a constant outlay of money in dredging so as to make it possible to be used by the Navy, some idea should be given of the expenditure, so that the House may judge whether the expenditure is justified.
Many remarks have been made in regard to shore establishments. I cannot follow the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull in this respect. The Geddes Committee criticise the Admiralty severely in regard to shore establishments, but I do not think they sufficiently realise that you cannot properly carry out the training of young boys as seamen, and the training of young able seamen either in gunnery or in torpedo practice on board ship, nor can you carry out the training of young officers adequately on board ship. To do so means putting the ship completely out of routine. Very often a ship is in dockyard for refit when it is necessary for the training to go through. That can only be adequately done on shore. A good deal has been said about putting the "Vernon" on shore. Many people think when they hear mention made of torpedoes or the Torpedo Branch of the Navy that that branch is only concerned with torpedoes. As a matter of fact, the Torpedo Branch of the Navy deals with fire control and with every branch of the electrical equipment of the ship. In addition, it has a good deal of work to do with the torpedoes. One of the lessons of the War has shown that certain establishments cannot really be effectively carried out at sea, and must be carried out on shore. The old "Vernon" was quite inadequate for the purpose. The new shore establishment has been designed on the most modern and up-to-date lines for machinery. It must not be supposed that the machinery with which the "Vernon" was equipped and which was getting old and out of date should not have been replaced. While hon. Members are criticising the Admiralty in connection with expenditure on the new "Vernon" establish-
ment, I maintain that it is the duty of the Admiralty to keep the equipment up to date. Only in that way can the Navy be fit to deal with every development of modern war.
The right hon. Member for South Molton mentioned Holton Heath, and I agree with him in regard to that question. I should like the Minister to explain why it is that the Admiralty cannot combine with the Army in regard to the production of cordite. It may be that Holton Heath is not capable of producing for both the Navy and the Army, but there is ample room for extension there. There is a magnificent factory, fully equipped for the production of cordite for the Navy's requirements during the War, but that establishment is apparently going slow. There are very few men there. It is not working to anything like its proper capacity. That establishment might do work for both the Navy and the Army. It may be that the cordite required for the Navy is different from the cordite used in the Army, but I should like the Admiralty to explain why they cannot combine the cordite production for the two Services. That matter might be brought before the Committee which is going into the question of the three Services, so that they might consider whether it would not be possible to combine the production of cordite for all the three Services.
There is an item for new coastguard buildings. Is the Minister certain that the site selected for the coastguard buildings are the best. I know of a new coastguard building which it is proposed to erect between Brighton and Newhaven, not very far from Rottingdean. I have heard rumours that that station is to be built quite close to the edge of a cliff which is practically disappearing into the sea Is that so? In that area the Admiralty have a very nice little plot further back from the sea. There may be some: thing against using that plot. At any rate, if they are going to erect a new coastguard station in this locality, it is important to see that when they do so they are not in danger of seeing the new coastguard building disappearing into the sea in a few years' time.
I come to the question of oil fuel storage. The right hon. Member for South Molten criticised the Admiralty very severely for their policy in regard to oil fuel storage. In so far as he
criticised what he called the gasometer system I entirely agree with him. It is a most dangerous system. At Devonport at the present time the Admiralty are erecting a large number of these new gasometer tanks for the storage of oil. At Rosyth there is an immense depot of 30 or 40 big gasometer tanks for oil, which have just been erected. At Port Edgar there are some. This type of tank adopted by the Admiralty is obviously a most vulnerable type for shells or bombs from an enemy. It is a matter for consideration whether the Admiralty should not have an improved form of oil tank, presumably something underground. Of course, it would be very expensive.
There is another point in this connection. We are now asked to lay out large sums of money all over the world. As the result of the Geddes Committee we have got to go slowly on oil storage. That is a most dangerous policy for the Navy. You may in what you are doing be crippling the Navy in future emergencies. If an emergency arose suddenly which made it necessary to send a British ship or squadron to some particular part of the world, there are places to which you would find it very difficult or almost impossible to send them or, at least, you could only send them steaming slowly so as to economise oil, and when they got there you would have to provide oil from oil tankers or something of that sort. To cut the Navy short of its fuel supply is to go to the very vitals of the Navy, which is a most dangerous thing. While you must spend as little money as possible there is a way in which you might get over the difficulty. There is a certain number of obsolete ships to be disposed of in the Navy. Could not some of these ships be adapted to be used as oil tanks? I do not know whether that is possible or not. I asked the same question last year, whether we could not, as a temporary measure only, adapt a certain number of obsolete ships for the storage of oil fuel.
It would have this further additional advantage. It may be that the strategic points selected for the erection of these new oil tanks, for which we are asked to vote money in this Vote, are not the very best in the light of developments in the immediate future. It may be after having put an oil tank in one place that we may wish it had been put in some other place. Ships used as floating oil tanks can be
moved from one place to another, and they would bridge the gap until we had discovered a certain strategic disposition of the oil which was the best that could be wished for. While we go slowly in this matter we must not cut down the oil in the Navy. We have now an entirely oil-burning Navy, with the exception of some battleships in the Mediterranean, and even they use a certain amount of oil. To cut short the fuel supply is most dangerous. The suggested arrangement would fill in a temporary gap, and these ships would have the additional advantage of being mobile.
I wish now to refer to the mystery towers which have been referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). I know them very well. After the Armistice the work went on on these two towers by night and day, and men were working overtime in continual shifts to get them completed. The Admiralty must have had some object in view when they were pushing this work through at great cost, for the overtime cost must have been terrefic. Now they have got them completed, and one is in use as a substitute for the Nab lightship. The other remains at Shoreham, to the disgust of the local inhabitants and anybody who has anything to do with the harbour. It is there as a monument of national waste. It is stated now that it is proposed to take it to pieces. An hon. Member suggested that it should be blown up. I do not think that he could have been at Shoreham or he would not have suggested that. The demolition of the structure, which is of reinforced concrete, would require a great deal of money. Why do the Admiralty not try to use it? Is it because they cannot get it out of the harbour now that it is built? If they got one out, why cannot they get out the other; and why cannot they use the second for the same purpose as the first, as a substitute for a lightship? I would ask the Admiralty to give a little detailed explanation about these mystery towers, because a great many people who have seen them think that they are a monument of waste. I accept the invitation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge of this Vote, and I would ask him to scrutinise most carefully the expenditure of the dockyards. In connection with Pembroke, remember that the Navy is not a Poor Law relief service nor a political agency.
Pembroke is not required for naval purposes, and it is a scandal that the Naval Vote should be saddled with what I regard as unjustifiable expenditure.

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: I should not have risen but for the fact that the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) moved to reduce the Vote by £1,000 because the Admiralty were going to complete the oil fuel storage accommodation at Jamaica. We discussed this matter very fully three years ago. I was one of those who urged the Admiralty to take the ships to which my Noble Friend has referred and to use them, but we were told conclusively that the upkeep of these vessels would be so great that it would be much cheaper for the Admiralty to have permanent tanks. My hon. and gallant Friend objects to Jamaica. He stated that in case of war with America we could not use it, and that if we were not at war with America we could get our oil from America. I am one of those who believe that we shall never be at war with America. I think that we are far too much moved by the same principles. We have too much in common for us ever to have war with America, but the United States does not own America. You have Canada and you have our possessions in the West Indies, and South America and I for one hope that our Fleet will annually visit large numbers of these ports in order to show that the British Empire is still ready to do its best and be in close touch with those countries. My hon. and gallant Friend seemed to think that Jamaica was of no importance, but Admiral Mahan has said that Jamaica is the great strategical point in the Carribean Sea. I hope that Jamaica will always remain a portion of the British Empire, and that our ships that are going to be propelled by oil will always be able to go there and replenish.

Mr. FOOT: I wish to associate myself with all that has been said this afternoon on the question of scrutinising the expenditure on dockyards, but I wish to bring before the Committee the question of the expenditure on the dockyard at Devon-port or Plymouth—it makes very little difference. Someone said earlier in the day that the dockyard is called the Devonport Dockyard, but it was in the early clays called the Plymouth Dock-
yard, and the Member for the Devonport Division of Plymouth (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) should be as gratified as the Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Sir A. S. Benn) to represent a town which, next to London, perhaps, is the most famous in the world. In every part of the world the name of Plymouth has been more frequently adopted than that of any other city. In America there are hundreds of towns which have taken the name of Plymouth, but it is to the Plymouth Dockyard to which I am making reference. Economy consists not merely in saving money, but in discrimination in spending money to the best advantage. In Devonport Dockyard for some time past it has been found necessary in the national interest to advocate an extension of the slip, if Devonport Dockyard was to be made equal to all the needs of the Navy, and last year, as a member of the Plymouth Corporation, and accompanied by a number of Plymouth and others Members of the House, I had an opportunity of putting before the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the necessity not only for the expenditure included in these Estimates, but for the extension of the slip so that any ship might be built in one of these yards. The assurance was then given by the Parliamentary Secretary, with his usual courtesy, that the Devonport Dockyard was not to become simply a secondary dockyard, but the permanent policy of the Admiralty was to make Devonport Dockyard a real yard equal to all the needs of the Navy.

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: I would ask your ruling, Sir Edwin, on this point. Does not this matter come more particularly under Vote 8? If we start discussing what has not been done there will be no end.

Mr. FOOT: On the point of Order. There was certain expenditure relating to extensions at. Plymouth Dockyard. I was hoping that it might be in order to say that these extensions were not sufficient.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to develop that argument. He began by referring to items which are included in the Vote, and which seemed to be in order. Then he proceeded to get rather wide. The Minister in charge of the Vote
rose to a point of Order, at a particular moment when the hon. Gentleman was out of order. But I have no doubt that the hon. Member will be able to make his point, and to say what he wants to say on the Vote before us.

Mr. FOOT: If it were in order to discuss it on a subsequent Vote, I would more readily do so, but what I suggest here is that, having regard to the assurances that were given that the dockyard was to be made equal to all emergencies, might it not be possible to say that the millions of money which the nation has invested in the Royal yard should be utilised now that we are advocating economy, and that they cannot be utilised because neither Plymouth nor Devonport yard is equal to the building of the ships which we require at present for the Navy?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is rather wide.

Mr. FOOT: In view of your ruling, if it is in order on a subsequent Vote, I would rather reserve my remarks.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: I will be very brief, as I wish merely to take exception to one or two small items. There is an item here for mosquito nets. I have been bitten by mosquitoes. When I was at sea we never asked for mosquito nets, and I do not think that they are at all necessary. There is Pembroke Dock. An hon. Member referred to the scandal of spending money there. I shall certainly vote with him for a reduction of the amount. Take Rosyth. There is a charge of £14,200 for the storage of gun mountings, and £3,000 is to be spent this year. I would like an explanation. It must be abvious that existing sheds and stores are ample for the storage of gun mountings.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: I would like to associate myself with other hon. Members in congratulating the Civil Lord on the preciseness of his speech. At the same time I wish to take great exception to the underlying idea of his opening statement. As one listened to him one wondered whether there had been a pact of peace at Genoa, whether the Washington Conference was successful, and whether the League of Nations was to be a reality. The underlying idea of his speech was a comparison of the present
Estimate with the pre-War standard. I suggest that the comparison to-day should not be with a pre-War standard, but between what the nation can afford and the realities of the situation. These Estimates have created profound disappointment amongst millions of people in this country. Take this particular Estimate of 4,000,000. If the Geddes Committee's recommendations had been adopted the Tea Duty alone could have been reduced by nearly 2d. a pound. The recommendations of that Committee were made by practical men. One of them was First Lord of the Admiralty during a serious period of the War, and he would not have put his name to that Report if he had been at all doubtful about letting the Navy down below the efficiency standard. The Civil Lord endeavoured to justify his Estimate but the Geddes Committee recommended that 11,000,000 should be sufficient for the continuation of works, repairs and maintenance. In the present Vote the sum is nearly £2,000,000.
On storage accommodation, for which £1,020,000 is asked in these Estimates, the Committee recommended that the whole policy of oil storage in distant portions of the globe should be reviewed by the Navy. I suggest that if the interests of the taxpayer and the reality of the present situation had been clearly before the Admiralty when these Estimates were framed, the amount of the Vote would have been very largely reduced. On this Vote last year several hon. Members moved a reduction on certain items. This afternoon the Civil Lord has told the Committee that they are not now proceeding on the works which were started last year, that they are going slowly in other directions that they have postponed the erection of accommodation which they had hoped to proceed with, and that they had cut down new works. When these Estimates were before the Committee last year the Government endeavoured to justify every item in the expenditure, and if I this afternoon endeavoured to go through certain items. I have little doubt that the spokesman of the Government would fully justify to the Committee each item page by page. I think it was the late Mr. Gladstone who laid down this particular constitutional point, that when the House wits anxious to challenge the policy of a Government it was unwise to enter into questions of administration. The Civil
Lord supported by the Financial Secretary and by his naval colleagues at the Admiralty can no doubt make out quite a good case for every item in these large Estimates. But they have forgotten the larger issue—that the necessity of spending this large sum of money no longer exists, that the Geddes Committee is clearly of opinion that the Admiralty have not yet fully grasped or grasped in any degree the fact that the sum of money they are asking from the House is excessive and unnecessary.
Several hon. Members have drawn the attention of the Civil Lord to large items of expenditure. There are one or two I wish to indicate. New works are being erected at Aden, Bermuda and Ceylon for the storage accommodation of oil fuel. No money has yet been spent on the accommodation at Aden and Ceylon. If it he the universal desire among all classes of the community here, in Japan, in America and on the Continent that there can he no possible or no probable war for a considerable period of time., surely the clay has arrived when the precautions which were so necessary before the last War have become unnecessary.

Sir F. BANBURY: The present Prime Minister told us in 1914 that that was the most favourable moment to reduce the expenditure on the Army and Navy, and said he was going to do it the next year. That shows how little people know what the future holds for us.

Mr. WATERSON: We have had a war since then, and it has altered the conditions.

Sir F. BANBURY: We shall soon have another war if the Labour party get into power.

Sir G. COLLINS: I am not a student of the speeches of the Prime Minister in 1914. I remember Debates of that time, and I remember taking an active part. in supporting the Government in Estimates Of £50,000,000 and arguing that the naval expenditure of 1914 was not excessive in comparison with our expenditure on social services during that year. But conditions have changed, and it is likely that wars will be impossible for years to come. These Estimates do not reveal that the realities of the situation have yet been grasped by the Admiralty. Take Rosyth as an example. The Committee is being
asked to vote £223,000 for Rosyth. Was Rosyth so inefficient during the War that this large expenditure is necessary to-day? Surely if the present standard at Rosyth could stand the test of 4½ years of war in the North Sea, we might call a halt to a large expenditure of money this year. Take Singapore, £300,000. That involves further expenditure next year of £397,000 and further expenditure. in coming years. Reference has been made to the "Vernon," and the large expenditure this year on shore establishments in connection with that educational service. Take Glasgow, £140,000, for additional storage accommodation in that district. Gibraltar is the same, and Pembroke and Devonport. I suggest that, judged by the findings of the Geddes Committee, judged by the reality of the situation, judged by the extraordinary economic pressure which is being felt by millions throughout the country to-day, the Admiralty, having a real regard to the long and best interests of the Navy, are not justified in asking the Committee to vote this large sum of money.

Sir F. BANBURY: There are some people who never remember anything. Let me point out to the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken what occurred in 1914. He says that he does not remember the speeches of the present Prime Minister. I shall not recall any speech of the Prime Minister, but a memorial signed by 100 Liberal Members of Parliament.

Sir G. COLLINS: I did not sign it.

Sir F. BANBURY: But 100 Members of the. hon. Gentleman's party signed it, and presented it to the Government in January, 1914, requesting that the expenditure on the Navy should be reduced. That shows the utter folly of attempting to eat down our fighting forces, either the Navy or in the Army. I am not saying that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty or the Civil Lord might not make certain economies. I do not know whether they could or could not. But a general and wholesale cutting down of the defensive forces of the Crown is absolutely suicidal and has been always wrong. Every single Member of the Radical party who in the years before the War voted for a reduction in the expenditure on Army and Navy stands convicted of having caused loss of life to an immense number of
people, which life might have been saved if they had taken the patriotic course instead of endeavouring to reduce the duty on tea by 2d. and gaining a few votes from people who do not understand the subject. The hon. Gentleman says there may not be any war in the future. How does he know. It was only a few days ago that the Prime Minister at Genoa stated that the situation was extremely serious. I do not always attach much importance to the statements of the Prime Minister. No one knows whether or not there may he war.

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

That statement has been proved to be true throughout generations. Nothing could be more suicidal or foolish than to endeavour to cut down our defence forces. No one has realised more than I the necessity for economy, and no one has preached it more often than I have done. But there is a foolish economy and a wise economy, and it is a foolish economy so to reduce defensive forces that, should war unfortunately come, you have to spend millions in preparing, when you might have spent far less had your defensive forces been in proper condition. I leave out of consideration the advantage to the country of being disciplined.

The CHAIRMAN (Sir James Hope): That has nothing to do with works and buildings.

Sir F. BANBURY: I was answering the hon. Gentleman opposite, because I thought it was necessary to expose the fallacies with which he was attempting to enlighten the Committee.

Mr. WALLACE: I had no intention of intervening in the Debate, because the, subject in which I am more specially interested will come up for discussion when another Vote is before us. I will make only one comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins). I suppose that when his speech is reproduced in the newspapers to-morrow, he will be credited as an apostle of economy. But I wish to point out that in his whole speech there was not a single point of criticism which he attempted to prove. He spoke in general terms of extravagance and made a reference to the Geddes Committee, but he did not attempt to prove
a single point that he tried to make. It is true he made reference to Rosyth, and if the rest of the speech is to be tested by the nature of his reference to Rosyth, I do not think it is a speech that will either do him much credit, or will be of much importance to this Committee. He asked, Did Rosyth fail us during the War? He also asked why, if it stood all the turmoil and all the storm and stress of four and a half years of War in the North Sea., we should spend money upon it to-day? Does he know anything about Rosyth? Does he know that Rosyth to-day, whatever may be its future, is still an incomplete dockyard? What its possibilities may be I cannot foretell. I do not profess to have any knowledge of strategy, but I do think a little common sense might be applied to discussions of this kind regarding Rosyth. Is the hon. Member for Greenock prepared to see Rosyth fall into disrepair? That would appear to be a strange idea of economy. We have there a dockyard, probably the best-equipped in the whole world, and because the Admiralty, after reducing the staff and reducing expenditure in every possible direction, propose to extend this comparatively small amount on necessary repairs in order to keep this dockyard up to date, my hon. Friend proceeds to lecture, the Committee upon the necessity for economy. I claim to be as much interested as he is in the question of economy and in the reduction of public expenditure, but I suggest that the criticisms which he offers too frequently might have some relevance to the facts and show some degree of proportion and perspective on his part. I shall take occasion on Vote A to deal more fully with Rosyth, merely remarking at this stage that it is impossible to overrate the importance of keeping this dockyard as far as possible in repair, because its possibilities for the future, commercially and otherwise, are very great and should not be lost sight of by the Government.

Lieut.-Cammander KENWORTHY: I do not propose to make a second speech, but I wish to correct a slip I made when I was moving the reduction. I intended to move the reduction in connection with the Pembroke Dockyard, and I said Jamaica by mistake. This is not a reduction on account of Jamaica but on
account of Pembroke, which, I contend, has nothing to do with the efficiency of the Navy at all.

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: It is not easy to answer the hundred and one questions that are fired at one in the course of a Debate of this character, and I hope if I overlook any which have been put to me this evening the.hon. Members concerned will prompt me before I sit down. With regard to the speech made by the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins), I think what he said about Rosyth has been adequately answered by the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. J. Wallace). I only wish the Debate had gone on further, and I think most of the points which have been raised by hon. Members would have been answered by other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Greenock seemed to be very much down upon the Admiralty in general and on this Vote in particular. All I can say is that if every Department had done as well as the Admiralty, bearing in mind the increased expenditure, and had reduced their Estimates to only 26 per cent. above what they were before the War, nobody would have much to complain of in this country, and that is what we have done. The hon. Member went on to criticise, in a very hostile way, the scheme for supplying oil fuel tanks all over the world for the replenishment of our ships which have ceased to use coal and depend upon oil. If we do not have these tanks and oil fuel depots all over the world, it is no use having a Navy. You cannot move a Navy about without oil, and you might as well scrap the Navy altogether if you are not going to give it the means:)f moving about to whatever part of the world you require to send it. The hon. Member concentrated his attention on Aden, Bombay and Suez, and said we had not carried out the recommendations of the Geddes Committee. We have, however, done so, and we have cut down to a very large extent our requirements for oil fuel—so much so, that I think we have almost over-cut, but we certainly have cut down in many cases. We cannot, however, concentrate on cutting in these particular places because this is the most important route to the East, and I hope the Committee will not support the hon. Member in what he is seeking to do.
I now come to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). I will start at once on the subject of Pembroke Dockyard, and my remarks on this will answer other hon. Members who have spoken. It is quite true that for purely naval purposes we could do without Pembroke, but there are a good many other things to be looked at. Looked at from the national point of view, I do not think it would pay to close up Pembroke. There must be some give and take as between one Department and another in the matter of expenditure for national purposes. You cannot put the different items of expenditure into water-tight compartments. Pembroke is a place which has grown up with the Navy. It has got nothing else to depend upon, and it would be destitute if we turned away from it altogether. When we consider the compensation that must be paid, when we consider that we must look after the established men, and when we consider the out-of-work donations that would have to be paid, I do not know that the country would gain much financially by closing down this yard. Apart from that, work of a purely naval character is being done there which, if not done there, would have to be done somewhere else. It cannot be said we would save the whole amount suggested. We would save a certain amount in overhead expenses, but we would still have to meet the cost of the work and material. To come down to the particular point which has been mentioned, the only expenditure proposed is £1,600. Some hon. Members, have alluded to this as if it were something new. It is nothing of the sort. It is a very old continuation service and we see the end of it this year. We are keeping up Pembroke and we must keep it efficient for the work we want it to do. Further, I would remind hon. Members who wish us to get rid of Pembroke and to see it used one day for commercial purposes, that this expenditure will very much increase the value of Pembroke if ever it is used for those purposes.
The case of other dockyards has been gone into and I do not think I need say much about Rosyth. Rosyth we are keeping as a docking base and we have reduced the expenditure enormously because we are not going to have any repairs there. It is because of that I am able to come
forward with proposals that show a very great reduction on what we should have had to spend on Rosyth if we used it as a repair base. The hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs referred to it as an incomplete dockyard, but it never was a dockyard and it is not a dockyard now. Why it was not was because the party then in power, to which the hon. and gallant Member for Hull belongs, refused to spend any money upon it and that proved a very grave menace to us in the Navy when the War broke out.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Who started Rosyth?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: They refused to continue it. The hon. and gallant Member went on to ask me about a motor garage at Portsmouth. He spoke of it as if it were a great expense. As a matter of fact we are pooling all the motor service and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we are quite up to date in having adopted motors instead of other methods of transport. We want a place in which to keep our motors. At present they are rotting in a very inefficient shack and we are asking for this money to build another roof to cover them and protect them. I may inform the hon. Member that as a result of the use of motor transport we are saving £25,000 a year as compared with the old scheme and I think we can well afford to pay for this item. With regard to the "Vernon," it has been on the shore establishment for a very long time. I am not responsible for the "Vernon" ashore and I do not think the hon. Member was questioning the wisdom of building it. I knew the old "Vernon" very well. I went through several courses there myself, but unfortunately she is absolutely rotten through and through and it would cost infinitely more than this to put her right or to provide anything else floating to take her place. Although it may be nice, for old times' sake, to have your training establishment in a ship, it is not really up to date and it is not a sound economy. The establishment on shore may appear expensive now, but of course all building operations are expensive at present, and we are cutting down the cost to the utmost.
I think I am now left only with the MN scheme to deal with. I am very glad to be able once more to anticipate the wishes of hon. Members in regard to the question
of the abolition of the towers. That is why we are asking for this particular amount of money. The MN scheme was one of the legacies of the War. Fourteen of these towers were left but only two were retained because they had gone to such an advanced stage that we thought we might as well see what could be made of them. The other 12 were demolished. One of these towers as has been pointed out, is in the position of the Nab Light and is being used as a lighthouse. It is also being used in carrying out some experiments, but I hope the Committee will not press me on that point. The tower at Shoreham has been one of the most difficult things with which we have had to deal. We have had meeting after meeting endeavouring to decide how to dispose of it. They will not have it any longer at Shoreham. We have done our utmost to sell it. We have done our utmost to use it for the purpose of giving people an opportunity of surveying the surrounding view. We have tried every means in our power and now we are asking for £17,000 to demolish it as it stands, and I hope we shall hear nothing more about it.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: Why not take it out and lose it.

6.0 P.M.

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: Because it would cost something like £60,000 to get it anywhere. I sat on two or three committees dealing with this matter and I think we considered every possible way of disposing of it and found that this would be the cheapest. As to Jamaica which I think was the last point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull, he brought forward the question of America. This has nothing to do with the question of war with America or war with any country. This is a peace time requirement. It is only to replace coal, and the Fleet must fuel somewhere. In regard to the questions put by the hon. and gallant Member for Shettleston (Rear-Admiral Adair), the first question he asked was about mosquito nets at Bermuda. The medical branch have made very great strides on the question of malaria, and we wish to keep up to date as far as we can in the Navy in regard to these matters. We have had a report on the subject, and we think it is very necessary indeed that
we should have this mosquito netting. The other point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman was the question of gun mountings at Rosyth, and he asked what these were. They are the guns and the gun mountings for supplying to merchant ships in time of war. At present they are lying all over the country, and a great many of them are deteriorating to an enormous extent and at great cost to this country. We have been in great difficulties in getting a store for these mountings. First of all, we thought of Morecambe, but that was too expensive, and then we thought of a disused airship shed at Howden, but when Rosyth was cut down it was a God-sent opportunity of getting a cheap store, and that is what we are doing. The amount we are asking for is a flea-bite compared with what I asked for last year for Morecambe, and so we have made a very great saving there.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) spoke of Wei-hai-wei and asked why we had a small expenditure of, I think, £500 there, as, owing to the result of the Washington Conference, we are going to hand it back to China. At present we are waiting for a Conference with China on the whole question of Wei-hai-wei and as to money transactions which will no doubt pass between us. I hope we shall have some saving to show there, but in the meantime the Chinese Government have given us permission to use Wei-hai-wei purely for a health and welfare resort. It has been a very great advantage to have somewhere to land ships' parties on that coast, and the money in this Vote a small amount that is going to be expended in that direction. The hon. and gallant Member also asked me about oil, and other hon. Members asked me about the defences for oil. The question of defences was never raised when we had coal, and all I am asking for is oil to replace coal for peace-time requirements. When it comes to war requirements and a strategical reserve, we shall no doubt have to have some protection for them, if indeed they will not be in places where there is some protection for them already. He also asked why we could not rely on mercantile supplies. The reason why we cannot do that is because the mercantile supply is infinitesimal compared with the needs of the British Navy. We want to
build up a reserve, in case there is a war, without depending on any mercantile reserves, because we find, when the stress of war comes, that the mercantile people come to us for supplies instead of us going to the mercantile people, and in some places where we shall eventually want a strategical reserve it, is quite impossible to ask any mercantile firm to lock up the big amount they would have to lock up in tanks.
My Noble Friend the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) asked me about Chatham and Sheerness. Of course, we are using Chatham and Sheerness for small ships. He asked about dredging, and it is rather difficult to find out at a moment s notice with any degree of accuracy the cost of dredging, but I give him the figure of nearly £10,000 annual expenditure. With regard to the question of Port Edgar, most of the Noble Lord's criticisms were in regard to money in the Estimates, but here there is no money in the Estimates. Port Edgar is still being used for what it was built for, namely, a destroyer base, and I congratulate my Noble Friend on the fact that there is no expenditure required for Port Edgar.

Viscount CURZON: Not in dredging?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: I should not like to say that. I cannot answer that off-hand, as it is quite possible there is some money for dredging there, but we have got dredging lumped together. My Noble Friend asked if the question of cordite could be dealt with in combination with the Army. At present we have not come to any arrangement with the Army, chiefly because we really depend in the Navy on a much higher state of purity than in the Army. My Noble Friend will appreciate the imperative necessity of pure cordite for the safety of our ships, and it is so very important that we should have an absolutely pure cordite, that I have no hesitation in asking the Committee to pass the money for which we are asking in this Vote. All this money that we are spending is directed towards removing impurities, and if we do prevent impurities, it will save the country a lot of money in the long run. If anything is found to go wrong in a batch of cordite, the whole lot is scrapped at great expense, and if you can only get purity in cordite and keep out these little particles that form and set up heat in the cordite itself, a
great deal of money can be saved. With regard to the coastguard station mentioned, I will certainly find out about that, but I can hardly believe it is true. We have gone into the whole coastguard question most carefully indeed, and I very much hope, although I will not say anything about it now, because a Committee is sitting, that the people who benefit by the great proportion of the coastguards will bear that proportion. I only hope that may be so, but I do not know what the Committee will report.
My Noble Friend suggested providing obsolete ships for oil instead of erecting tanks. All the arguments which can be directed against what have been called in the Committee the gasometer tanks by my Noble Friend and by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) apply equally, of course, to ships. They are one and all liable to attack from submarines or aircraft and we have arrangements in the tanks for retaining the oil if a tank is demolished. I do not want the Committee to run away with the idea that it is easy for these tanks to be set on fire as the oil that we use in the Navy is extremely difficult to set on fire. I do not think, whatever may happen, that aircraft have yet reached the extraordinary accuracy of aim that seems to alarm my right bon. Friend the Member for South Molton, which would make it impossible ever to put an oil tank above ground. We have put tanks below ground at Gibraltar, where we bored into the rock itself, but if we tried to do this everywhere it would cause enormous expenditure, and it would be quite impossible to do so, although, of course, it would be very much better. To go back to the question of obsolete ships, these ships are not adapted to hold oil, and we have to go through a very difficult process to make ships capable of holding oil. I have got figures which I will not go into now, but they show that to alter a ship for this purpose costs a very great deal. I think most of the

other questions asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton have been answered in the course of my remarks, and the shore establishment question which he raised was answered very ably by my Noble Friend the Member for South Battersea, who followed me in the Debate and who explained that it was not possible to give any form of intensive training on board ship. The police houses at Rosyth are really at Bandeath, and I think he has made a mistake. He also referred to the question of the Metropolitan Police. Some time or other we are coming to the House with a scheme for substituting a much cheaper form of police. I think we shall have Marine pensioners, and that will save the country a great deal of money, although in some cases we must retain the Metropolitan Police. My right hon. Friend complained about the houses being built. Of course we shall want those houses, whoever forms the new police force, and these houses are being built to 'house the policemen who will protect the new ammunition centres.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for the very full answers he has given to all the questions, but it is not quite clear why £17,000 is required to break up these costly towers, or the one remaining now. Why did we go on with these after the Armistice, spending £1,000,000 on them, and then asking for another £17,000 for the purpose of undoing the work put into them?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: We spent 1,000,000 on building two, and one, of course, is in use; but most of that money was spent in demolishing the other 12.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,482,000, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 87; Noes, 215.

Division No. 117.]
AYES.
[6.20 p.m.


Adair, Roar-Admiral Thomas B S.
Bromfield, William
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Cairns, John
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Armitage, Robert
Cape, Thomas
Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill
Finney, Samuel


Banton, George
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Galbraith, Samuel


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Gillis, William


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Birchall, J. Dearman
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Grundy, T. W.


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hall, F. (York, W. B., Normanton)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Sutton, John Edward


Hallas, Eldred
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Swan, J. E.


Halls, Walter
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Hartshorn, Vernon
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Hayday, Arthur
Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Waterson, A. E.


Hayward, Evan
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Hirst, G. H.
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Myers, Thomas
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Hogge, James Myles
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Holmes, J. Stanley
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. w. (Stourbrdge)


Irving, Dan
Rattan, Peter Wilson
Wintringham, Margaret


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wolmer, Viscount


Johnstone, Joseph
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Robertson, John



Kennedy, Thomas
Royce, William Stapleton
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Kenyon, Barnet
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy and


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Spoor, B. G.
Major McKenzie Wood.


Lawson, John James




NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Marks, Sir George Croydon


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Gilbert, James Daniel
Martin, A. E.


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel sir John
Matthews, David


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Glyn, Major Ralph
Middlebrook, Sir William


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Goff, Sir R. Park
Mitchell, Sir William Lane


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gould, James C.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Green, Albert (Derby)
Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H


Barlow, Sir Montague
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Morrison, Hugh


Barnston, Major Harry
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert


Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert
Gregory, Holman
Neal, Arthur


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Hailwood, Augustine
Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Hayes, Hugh (Down, W.)
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Nield, Sir Herbert


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hills, Major John Waller
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Briggs, Harold
Hinds, John
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Hacket


Bruton, Sir James
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Parker, James


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Hood, Sir Joseph
Pearce, Sir William


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn, W.)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Butcher, Sir John George
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Carew, Charles Robert S.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Carr, W. Theodore
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Pratt, John William


Carter, H. A. D. (Man., Withington)
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Purchase, H. G.


Casey, T. W.
Hudson, R. M.
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Cautley, Henry Strother
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Hunter, General sir A. (Lancaster)
Renwick, Sir George


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Richardson, Sir Alex, (Gravesend)


Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Clough, Sir Robert
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Jephcott, A. R.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Jesson, C.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Cope, Major William
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Rodger, A. K.


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


Dawson, Sir Philip
Jones, J. T (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk, George
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Kidd, James
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Edge, Captain Sir William
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Larmor, Sir Joseph
Seddon, J. A.


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Sharman-Crawford, Robert G.


Evans, Ernest
Lindsay, William Arthur
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Shortt, Rt. Hon E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Falcon, Captain Michael
Lloyd, George Butler
Simm, M. T.


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)


Fell, Sir Arthur
Lorden, John William
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.
Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Foot, Isaac
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Stanton, Charles Butt


Forestier-Walker, L.
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Steel, Major S. Strang


Forrest, Walter
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Stevens, Marshall


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Stewart, Gershom


Gange, E. Stanley
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Ganzoni, Sir John
Magnus, Sir Philip
Sturrock, J. Leng


Gee, Captain Robert
Manville, Edward
Sugden, W. H.




Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)
Wallace, J.
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Taylor, J.
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Thorpe, Captain John Henry
Williams, C. (Tavistock)
Younger, Sir George


Tickler, Thomas George
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Tryon, Major George Clement
Winterton, Earl
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Waddington, R.
Wise, Frederick
McCurdy.


Original Question put, and agreed to

WAGES, ETC., OF OFFICERS, SEAMEN, AND BOYS, COAST GUARD, AND ROYAL MARINES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £12,926,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Wages, etc., of Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, in addition to a sum of £2,930,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £12,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: This is the. Vote for wages and personnel, and I may say at once that, of course, I am not making any sort of suggestion that the wages of the personnel of the Navy should be reduced. I would here like to put in a caveat to the Geddes Committee's report on economy. I would suggest that to put together the lodging and the fuel allowances and count them as wages of the officers without taking into account the fact that the officers and men of the Navy have got to keep up a home on shore as well as a home on board ship; to compare these wages with those of civil servants is simply absurd and ridiculous. One of the points not remembered in appraising the wages of the officers and men of the Royal Navy is the fact that they have to keep up a home on board ship and to provide for their families, very often miles away from the home base of their ships, and then they have, in addition, travelling expenses. My criticisms, therefore, are not in any way directed towards the very meagre pay, as I still consider it, of the officers and men of the Fleet.
Might I on this Vote ask for some further details of the proposals of the Admiralty for reducing the personnel? That it must be reduced is obvious, owing to the various circumstances with which we are well acquainted. Obviously, too, many proficient and excellent officers
and many gallant and trustworthy men will have to be retrenched. We have a right, I think, to say to the Admiralty that the officers who are to go must be treated fairly. I should like to draw the attention of the Committee in connection with this to the proposals of the Admiralty as to retiring officers on the reports made by their captains, and in particular to that extraordinary order about officers who will have to be retired compulsorily owing to peculiarities of temper. [A laugh.] It may be a matter of amusement to many people and to those who do not happen to be among the officers to be picked out. But it must be remembered that these are officers against whom no charge of misconduct has been brought; because, however, of some alleged peculiarity of temper they have to go. I am afraid that in some cases there may be a danger that officers who are a little out of the ordinary, and who are rather blessed with too much initiative, may get at logger-heads with their superiors on perfectly honest differences of opinion—may be picked out while in reality they are very valuable officers indeed. If at any time they get an adverse report they will be compulsorily retired, lose in a pecuniary sense, and get their actual career cut short. This is a right of the Admiralty which should be hedged about by safeguards, which have always in the past existed for naval officers. There has always been the safeguard of a court-martial so that an officer might be tried by his peers. Now that the Admiralty claim absolutely autocratic power to say that this or that man is unsuitable by reason of peculiarities of temper—whatever that may mean—the man should have the right of appeal. This power to clear a mean out of the Service is an autocratic power which no Government Department ought to have. I would ask the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Amery) to explain what is the exact procedure in this matter?
In answer to a question he has stated that the report of one captain will not be sufficient to enable the Admiralty to dispense with an officer. But is there going to be an appeal of any sort? Will the officer concerned have any warning before being cleared out of the Service? Will he be given the opportunity to see the report on which the decision of the Admiralty is based? This is a matter of vital importance. So long as officers have this threat hanging over their heads they will be unsettled and uncertain and will not be able to do their best for the Service. I am reminded that the War Office have this power, but it is no sort of defence to say that the War Office have this power. They have this power to clear a man out on adverse reports, and I believe I am not far wrong in saying there have been many cases in which these powers have been used by the War Office in an unfair manner.

The CHAIRMAN: I am rather doubtful how far the observations of the hon. and gallant Gentleman are relevant to this Vote. So far as the retirement of officers is concerned, and analogous circumstances, they come, I think, on subsequent Votes if the hon. and gallant Gentleman is dealing with the general policy of the Admiralty. That must come on Vote 12, but must not go further. I am unwilling to stop the hon. and gallant Member, but I am doubtful about him raising that on this Vote.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: My point is, Mr. Hope, that this is a Vote for wages, the total of which the Admiralty propose to cut down, and there will be many officers and men less by exercising these powers of getting rid of the officers automatically. I am asking for details and not for an explanation of policy at all. However, I have finished my questions which were only to request that some further details might be given that would enable us to see how things lie.

The CHAIRMAN: That will come on the next Vote.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I just want to ask another question as to the number of officers, and I wish particularly to ask how it is that, when we
are retrenching officers and men at one end of the scale—when we are cutting down the personnel of the Navy—that actually we have more seamen and boys in training for the Navy this year than we had last year? Last year we had 3,500 seamen and boys in training. This year we had 4,393. Yet we are cutting down personnel! I have always done my best, I hope, to fight for the rights of the men and officers of the Service who are being retrenched, and to see that they get decent treatment, but to bring in these young lads in such excessive numbers seems to me to be an extraordinary policy. Here we are with more men than the Navy needs! They are having to be cut down, yet we have more than 1,000 boys in training than last year. It is very extraordinary. We are getting rid of excellent men against whom nothing is alleged, men who are perfectly efficient and well trained, yet we are training more boys than ever? What is to be their fate in a couple of years' time when they have become ordinary seamen? Will the Admiralty get rid of them in order to cut down the personnel?
What applies to the boys applies also to the cadets. The figures are given on page 13 of the Estimates, where it will he seen that we are training no less than 506 naval cadets at a time when something like 1,400 of these ranks have been got rid of. [An HON. MEMBER: "Eighteen hundred!"] Eighteen hundred executive officers, including young fellows about 23 and 24. A young friend of mine has just got his orders, having just finished his first commission as a lieutenant. He is going, yet we are training 506 naval cadets. Last year we trained, it is true 624. There is a reduction, but I question very much whether this number of cadets is required. When I was in the Britannia 20 years ago we had only 240 cadets. We have now twice as many cadets being trained to-day after the Great War in which our Navy stands supreme, and is paying the penalty of having to be cut down. I am afraid many of these cadets will not get very far in their naval career, for they will have to be cut down because of a swollen personnel. It is exceedingly bad economy. It would be much better to reduce the recruiting of the boys and to cut down the entries of cadets, and live upon the personnel you have now trained, which is efficient,
ready, and have had experience in the Great War. You have an excessive body of young fellows. They can go on as lieutenants, lieutenant-commanders and commanders for some years. It is very false economy to get rid of these trained seamen, but that is what is being done! It is a mistake to spend much money on the training of schoolboys and passing them into the service in which promotion will be blocked, and many of them may have to be compulsorily retired. I am afraid that in the whole matter there has not been very much co-ordination—that blessed word. Co-ordination has not been properly exercised. One Department of the Admiralty seems to have taken every sort of means to clear the Navy lists of officers and to get rid of blue-jackets, stokers, and marines, while another Department have been busy entering them in greater numbers than last year. Some explanation of this is required. I do not propose to move a reduction of the Vote, but I would ask the hon. Gentleman opposite for some explanation of this extraordinary state of things.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Perhaps it would be convenient to my hon. Friend opposite if I put one or two questions. What I specially wish to draw the attention of the Committee to is the recommendation of the Geddes Committee in regard to the home commands, and to acknowledge the partial application by the Government of that recommendation. It might interest the Committee if I very briefly indicate what the Committee recommended. The Committee says:
We are by no means satisfied that for all practical purposes the whole command ashore in this country could not be exercised by one Commander-in-Chief, and we suggest that there should be a special investigation upon this point, especially having regard to the reductions in personnel recommended.
Then they go on to say:
We do recognise"—
as we all do—
that the popularity of a Service requires a few positions of dignity"—
in the way of persons in attendance on them. But they point out at the end of this particular paragraph:
Roughly a staff of about 20 officers costing £17,000 per annum has a retinue costing slightly more to wait upon it. We suggest that an economy in such a matter 'at the top of the Service'"—
and I would direct especially the attention of the Committee to this—
would set an example for similar economies elsewhere
Then if hon. Members will turn to the Appendix (F. 1)—page 45—they will see what the authorised retinues are. The list is an amazing one. It starts with the Chief of Staff and goes down through the maintenance captain, war-staff officer, and so on, to the chief or first writer, second writer, and petty officer (coxswain)—a total staff of 123. What I should like to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman particularly is this, that while he has abolished the Scottish command and also the Western approaches command there are three left. Naturally he has begun at, the bottom and abolished the two smaller commands. What I want to know is whether in the retinues of the commands which are left he has made many cuts and what reductions, if any, are made in the commands which are left in the way of numbers or of pay. I should imagine that what might be necessary or indeed useful in war time, or when there is a danger of war, is not a necessary retinue in times of peace. To what extent have these retinues been reduced since the War, and what reductions, if any, have been made since the recommendations of the Geddes Committee? I should also like to know what reductions the hon. and gallant Gentleman proposes to make in the immediate future.

Major Sir B. FALLE: I beg to move, that Item II (Marriage Allowance) be reduced by £100.
I do so in order to call attention to the failure of the Admiralty to make any allowance for married officers. The officers of the Army, the non-commissioned officers of the Army, and the officers of the Air Force all receive a marriage allowance. All the men of the Fleet receive a marriage allowance, and the only officers in the three great forces who do not receive a marriage allowance are the officers of the senior Service. It is on these officers that the prosperity of the Navy and the safety and security of this country is based, and I do not think it requires more than a mere statement of the fact to show this injustice.
I believe it is a fact that the Admiralty did propose to put into the Vote an amount necessary to provide a marriage
allowance in the Navy, but more powerful people were at work, and the Treasury cut down the scheme. I want to emphasise and make it clear to the Admiralty that, although this House does not wish to increase in any possible way expenditure on unnecessary subjects, it realises that when the officers of all other Services are receiving this allowance, it is unfair to the officers of the senior rank to be the only officers not in receipt of this allowance.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: I wish to say that this phrase, "Retinue of the Commander-in-Chief," is exceedingly misleading.

The CHAIRMAN: As this Amendment has been moved, the particular point of the marriage allowance must be disposed of before we begin to discuss the Vote as a whole. The hon. and gallant Admiral must confine his speech now to the question of the marriage allowance.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: I have been an advocate of this marriage allowance for the last three years, and I have strenuously endeavoured to obtain it for the married officers of the Navy, who, in my opinion, are most unfairly treated as compared with any other branches of the Service. I believe this provision was actually included in this year's Estimates, but that it was afterwards struck out. I think that was a gross piece of injustice, and I must tell the Parliamentary Secretary that I am going to press this matter in the hope of getting this provision put into next year's Estimate.

Viscount CURZON: I wish to support what the hon. and gallant Member for Plymouth (Sir B. Falle) has said on the subject of the marriage allowance for officers. There are few questions which have really rankled amongst the officers of the Navy so much as this question of the marriage allowance. It is not understood by the officers of the Navy why an officer in the Army and the Air Force should have a marriage allowance while the same is denied to the officers of the Navy. The naval officer has to pay his mess hills on board, and he has also to keep up his home on shore. It is quite true that their pay was raised, but I think the Admiralty realise that their position is very difficult to-day. I feel sure, from such information as I have,
that the Admiralty are entirely on the side of these officers, and this proposal has only been turned down in the interests of national economy.
It is true that under the present scheme the scale of pay must be revised in 1924, and it may be that in the present financial state of the country it will not be possible for the Admiralty to grant this long-needed reform, but when 1924 does come, I hope the whole question of naval pay will be gone into, and I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge of the Vote that there is no question which presses more upon married officers than this. There are many cases which I could bring to the notice of the Admiralty of the wives of naval officers who are in most difficult and almost desperate circumstances. I do not believe that the Members of this Committee have any idea how difficult it is, owing to the high cost of living, for some of the wives of the naval officers to keep their homes going and provide an education for their children on the pay which their husbands are receiving. I hope we shall receive some explanation from the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to why the recommendations of the Grand Fleet Committee have not been adopted. We want an assurance that at the earliest possible moment this subject will be re-opened, and I hope it is not to be regarded as a book closed definitely and for ever against the naval officers.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): I think I might as well answer at once on this question. I can assure the hon. and gallant Admiral and the Noble Lord, who has just spoken, that this is certainly not a closed book, and that we hope as soon as conditions permit to raise again the particular position of the Navy as a whole, and the general question of principle, which underlies the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend, I should like, however, to draw a distinction between the principle of granting a marriage allowance at all, and the question whether officers in the Senior Service are at this moment at a disadvantage as compared with the officers in the other Services which have been referred to. I would remind the Committee that the principle of marriage allowance, of payment to a man not in accordance with the value of his work to
the State but in accordance with his domestic needs is a very new one, and new since the War. It was quite strange to the Naval Service before the War.
I must remind the Committee that when this question came up at the end of the War, the Grand Fleet Committee were in favour, as the other Services were, of a marriage allowance. But on this question of giving the marriage allowance, the Halsey Committee, a committee of serving sailors, came to the opposite conclusion, and, supported by the Admiralty of that day, they definitely decided that it was not in the interests of the Naval Service to have pay with a separate marriage allowance, but that the pay should be such as to enable any officer, when he came to the ordinary age for assuming domestic responsibility, to be able on his pay to keep a family, and from that point of view the rates of pay were steepened up very sharply.

Viscount CURZON: Is the Admiralty still of that opinion?

7.0 P.M.

Mr. AMERY: I will develop that argument later. They then took the view that an inclusive pay was the right one, and the Admiralty of that day agreed on that basis. The Cabinet had to arrive at a fair allotment as between the different services, and they fixed the pay accordingly. Corresponding ages in matters of domestic responsibility are the main test, and when the case of the married naval officer was taken into account he was better off than the corresponding married officer in the military service, and the bachelor naval officers were very much better off. Certain considerations altered that situation within the next few years. One was the increase in the cost of living, in consequence of which the allowance granted to married Army officers went up, but the pay of the Navy did not go up. There was a fresh consideration which, I think, was overlooked at the time at which the Cabinet fixed the pay for the different Services. It was that while the marriage allowance was not subject to Income Tax, the consolidated rate of pay was subject to Income Tax, and in view of the rate of Income Tax the naval officer therefore was some what worse off. When I dealt with this matter last summer I made it clear to the Committee that, on the general
question of principle, the Admiralty had definitely come round to the opinion held by the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) and the hon. and gallant Member for Shettleston (Rear-Admiral Adair). We now hold the view that the principle of the marriage allowance is a sound one, and I would say myself that it applies more and is more needed in the Naval Service than in any other. I also had to make it clear that to adopt the principle wholeheartedly would involve a complete recasting of the terms of naval pay which, in fairness to the unmarried officers now in the Service, we could not undertake until 1924. We also felt that the changes that had come about in respect of the increased allowances to married officers in the Army, and the very heavy burden of Income Tax, created a situation which justified the consideration whether an interim and smaller marriage allowance might not be given to the married officers in the Navy pending the consideration of the whole question of the principle.
It is quite true, as the Noble Lord said, that in our proposals in July last we did include a sum of £400,000 for such an interim and modified small marriage allowance, but the Geddes Committee and the Government, in view of the very serious financial situation of the country, felt it was not possible to add this extra addition to the cost of the Navy at this moment, when right through the country so many other classes of people were being asked to make heavy sacrifices. There is, at any rate, this consideration relevant to the issue. The cost of living has fallen appreciably in the last few months, and the Income Tax, which was one of the reasons which caused the Navy to be relatively worse off than the Army as compared with the situation when these rates of pay were fixed, has been reduced somewhat, and makes a difference as between 2s. 9d. and 2s. 4d. a day to the officers. The Army rates of allowance have also gone down somewhat. In view of all these considerations, although we put this case forward believing it to be desirable and equitable to do something for the married officers pending a revision, I do not believe it will be possible, in view of the national position, to press this year for this particular concession. We certainly do not regard this question of the
marriage allowance, however, as a door which is closed for all time.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: I am exceedingly glad to hear that this is not a closed matter, and I certainly should not have allowed it to remain closed. There are two or three points which ought to be mentioned in connection with the consolidated pay referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary which he has omitted to mention. The rates of pay were bedrock sums fixed by the Committee, and agreed to by the Admiralty on several conditions. The first was that the Service rate of Income Tax only was charged, that is about one-half of the ordinary rate. The second condition was that the children's allowance should be continued pending further consideration; that meant a considerable allowance for married men. The third condition was that the passages of all wives going abroad should be paid. I only mention these considerations because they have been omitted this evening, and they ought to be remembered. I am not going to vote for this Amendment, but I shall raise the question of the marriage allowance later on when next year's Estimates are approaching.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I listened with great interest to the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty. I think perhaps he would have been a little more courteous had he waited until one had had an opportunity of speaking before making his statement. Seeing that I have had other duties to attend to this afternoon I have not been able to speak earlier. I cannot say that I was impressed with the hon. Gentleman's statement. We have heard it made on many occasions, because this question of the marriage allowance is no new one, either to the Committee or to the House. It has been before the Committee and the House not only on the Naval Estimates but throughout the last few years. The hon. Gentleman has always made the same speech and said the same thing, only to-night he has said it a little bit better than he has done before. The question of the marriage allowance is a very important one for the officers in the Royal Navy. As hon. Members have said, there is clearly one law for the Army and another for the Navy. Why should a man in the Army be allowed to be married
while apparently a man in the Navy is not allowed to be married? That is what it comes to. This matter was very fully discussed so far as the Army was concerned about two years ago by the present Secretary of State for War, when he laid it down that the Government recognised marriage amongst officers in the Army, they wished the officers to be married, and would do what they could to assist them when they were married by giving them an allowance and permitting their children also to have an allowance. If that is done for the Army why should it be denied to the Navy?
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty has tried to make out a case, but I fail altogether to see any reason in what he said. He has not at all disturbed my speech, because I fully recognise that if the army man is married the naval man should be also. If one is married there are children, and the question of the children's allowance is very important, and is so regarded by the men in the Navy. What has happened? Not only has the marriage allowance been reduced, but the children's allowance has been taken away. That is most unfair. In addition to its being taken away, a recommendation of a very important Committee has been set aside. That Committee recommended that the children's allowance should be continued if the marriage allowance were taken away. The Government have taken away both allowances, and the result is that the married naval officer has got nothing, whereas the married army officer has got everything.
Only in August of last year we had a Debate on this subject, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty then stated that he would give a temporary marriage allowance. We had been looking forward to the temporary marriage allowance, but not only has that not been given, but the whole allowance has been wiped out because of the recommendations of the Geddes Committee. There were many recommendations in regard to the Admiralty by the Geddes Committee; have they all been recognised? Why, then, should this one be recognised? It is a very small economy, and ought never to have been agreed to. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, in trying to put this decision on to the Geddes Committee, is, in my opinion, endeavouring to get rid of a
difficulty which he ought himself to face. I regret very much that this sum of money has been struck out of the Naval Estimates, and I sincerely hope that it will be restored without delay.

Mr. G. LAMBERT: I am perfectly certain that the Committee would not wish the naval officer to be treated worse than the army officer or the air officer. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty gave us figures to show whether the charges made with some emphasis by the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) and the hon. and gallant Member for Shettleston (Rear-Admiral Adair) were true in fact. If they were true in fact, there must be something wrong about the fixing of the salary of the naval officer. He is certainly entitled to as good treatment as the air officer or the army officer; there can be no question about that. So long as there is inequality in pay there is bound to be a grievance. I would ask my hon. Friend whether it would not be possible, under these circumstances, to have a meeting of the Admiralty, the War Office and the Air Ministry to endeavour to co-ordinate the allowances and the salaries, so that there could be no question of grievance? I am quite certain that the House and the country would not wish the naval officer, who served us gallantly in the War and on whom we have to rely as our first line of defence, to be placed in a worse position than the army officer.

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: The Debate so far has been carried on by naval experts or by hon. Members who represent naval constituencies. I am the last person who would wish to do any harm to the naval officer or rating or to be unfair to him. I think it rather strange, however, that at the present moment hon. Member after hon. Member should suggest that we should add what I understand to amount to £400,000 to this year's Estimates. The disclosures of the fact that the Admiralty in July last had set down £400,000 for a scheme of this kind shows that it was about time that the Geddes Committee was appointed to go into the Estimates. I do not suggest that the arguments which have been used are not perfectly fair, but I think the present moment, when the cost of living is going down and taxation is so high, is not the time to right such a grievance and to lay
large sums on the Exchequer. I should be the last to say that on any future occasion the Navy should never have this grievance righted, but whilst taxation is as it is to-day there can be no prospect of putting the matter before the House of Commons. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty suggested that one of the grievances of the naval officer and the naval rating was that he had to pay such heavy taxation. Is it any wonder, with the schemes originated by the Admiralty and by other Departments, and with the waste going on in the other Departments that we have to pay such heavy taxation? If you are going to provide schemes of this sort, however laudable they may be, I see no prospect of reducing taxation. If you are going to give increased pay you will increase taxation. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary one day to right this grievance, but I do hope he will not do it while the taxpayers have much worse grievances which remain to be righted.

Mr. AMERY: I will just answer in a few words the question put by my right hon. Friend opposite. He asked me for the position in actual figures. I will give it in a sentence. Taking 30 as the average age at which a man marries, between the ages of 30 and 38, and over the whole of those nine years with the present marriage allowance for the Army and the Income Tax, the married naval officer is £290 worse off than the married Army officer. For the rest of his service the position is about level. On the other hand, over the whole of his career the unmarried naval officer is better off than the unmarried Army officer by a sum of £3,400. We should be only too ready to come to an agreement with the other Services at once to equalise that situation by putting a married naval officer on a marriage allowance comparable with that of the Army officer, but we could only do that by some reduction in the case of the unmarried naval officer. We are under a definite pledge to those who have been in the Navy since the scheme of 1919 was introduced not to alter their rates of pay until 1924. I am afraid I could not ask the unmarried naval officers to forego their rights in order to make things easier for their married colleagues. There might be a temporary concession in the way of a small increased marriage allowance if the exigencies of the financial situation permitted, and, at the first possible moment, we shall enter into con-
sultation between the two Departments with a view to bringing about a more satisfactory arrangement.

Sir B. FALLE: After the statement of the hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

Sir G. COLLINS: My right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) asked a few questions on this Vote, and I simply rise to invite the Parliamentary Secretary to give an answer to those questions.

Mr. AMERY: Certainly, I propose to do so presently.

Viscount CURZON: I want to return to one or two other questions which I imagine are covered by this Vote. I would like to ask whether I may refer, in the course of my few remarks, to the special treatment of officers under the head of "Peculiarities of Temperament," which was referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). I am not sure whether I shall be in order in speaking about it now.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): It is not among these items, I believe.

Viscount CURZON: The item is presumably regulated by the number of officers and men trained in the Navy. It is apparently intended to get rid of certain naval officers on certain grounds stated in the Admiralty Fleet Order, and that might affect some of the items mentioned here.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It does not seem to me to come under this Vote.

Viscount CURZON: I will not discuss it, then. But may I say that I think it is a most dangerous Order, capable of infinite abuse. The naval officer will have no appeal whatever. The Fleet Order is differently worded from the Army Order. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will bear that in mind. The Order really is not understood in the Navy. Why are the words "Peculiarity of temperament" used? However, I should like to refer to the
question of special retirements in the Navy. The Navy has had this sword of Damocles hanging over its head for a very considerable time. They have been anxiously waiting, and so, too, have the men of the lower deck, to know what is going to happen to them. I should like to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman with what success the Order has met so far. I gather that, possibly except in the captain's rank, very few officers are putting in for the special retirement. No fewer than 1,835 have to go before the 31st March next year. Here we have an appalling problem of selection, and it will be an infinitely difficult one for the Admiralty. I hope when the Admiralty come to consider it they will have regard principally to the needs of the Service and not solely to the personal advantage or disadvantage of the officers concerned. I think it is considered generally by naval officers that, on the whole, the proposal is a fair one, but I want to direct the attention of my hon. and gallant Friend to the case of the young commander, the man with four or five years' seniority. His position may be very difficult under that scheme.

Mr. AMERY: That question comes up on Vote 13.

Viscount CURZON: Then I will not discuss it now. May I refer to the number of flag officers. Am I entitled to do so? I mean the number of flag officers now in commission. I should like to ask my hon. and gallant Friend what steps the Admiralty are taking to effect a real economy in the senior ranks of the Navy. We have seen, as a result of the Geddes Report, that the Admiralty action will affect the Commander-in-Chief on the coast of Scotland who is to disappear and also the Commander-in-Chief at the Western Approaches. The Commander-in-Chief on the coast of Scotland is still shown on the Navy List. Is he still there or not? The same observations apply to the Commander-in-Chief on the Western Approaches. The latter appointment is now apparently held by a Vice-Admiral. Why a Vice-Admiral? Why not an officer of more junior rank? Now I come to the other squadrons. Take the China Squadron. There you have a squadron of four cruisers and that squadron has as senior officer no less than a full Admiral. That is shown on the May Navy List. I
believe another appointment has been made and that the officer relieving him is a Vice-Admiral.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to remember this, that in all probability there will be very little opportunity in the future for the officers of the Vice-Admiral rank. They will have little opportunity to take part in any future war in which the Navy may be concerned. In another ten years all these Vice-Admirals will be out of it. The officers in the Vice-Admirals rank had their fling in the late War and they played a splendid part in it. I hope the Admiralty are doing everything possible to avoid stagnation of promotion. They can only do it by beginning at the top and by getting the younger officers on. They must give them the high commands. I should like to ask the hon. and gallant Member with particular reference to the China Squadron, was it not possible, instead of a Vice-Admiral being sent out for the appointment to have been given to a Rear-Admiral. I know what the answer will be. It will be of course that as the French or the Japanese or the Americans have a Vice-Admiral there we must also have an officer of the same rank. But I think that argument is entirely wrong. It is always possible for the Admiralty to give an officer acting rank with the necessary seniority. At any rate they should do every thing they can to get the junior officers on.
I now come to the question of the Royal yachts I believe they are to be reduced in number. Apparently there is to be only one and I should like to ask if it is still intended to keep a Rear-Admiral for one Royal yacht? These are appointments where the Admiralty could realise certain economies—economies which at the same time would benefit the Service. I am most anxious to see the junior officers have an opportunity for advancement. Here I should like to refer to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Hull. I took down what he said for the sake of greater accuracy. He asked, "Why not live on your personnel?" I cannot imagine a. thing which would be worse for the Navy than that. You have got to try to get back to the naval point of view of naval training. You have to get back to pre-War conditions as soon as you can, both in the interests of national economy and of the Navy itself, and you will never do that until you get the normal
flow of promotion. You will have to face this special position. It will be faced by the officers concerned with courage, resignation and fortitude. They fully realise the national emergency which exists. I did not at all like the remarks made just now by the hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. E. Harmsworth). They were almost an insult to the Navy. Naval officers fully realise the position of the country. The naval officer does not want to go, but he is ready to accept the reduction which must undoubtedly be made and I hope that this reduction will have the effect of stimulating the flow of promotion. I hope, too, we shall not see again what occurred in January this year when there was no less than four months' delay before any officer of the temporary commander's rank was promoted. It is true that the promotions when made were dated back, but such delays undoubtedly have a very depressing and enervating effect on the minds of the naval officers affected, and may also have a very serious effect on the Navy. T hope when the Admiralty come to consider the flow of promotion that sort of thing will not occur again.
I should like, in conclusion, to make a reference to the Report of the Geddes Committee which was referred to by the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D Maclean). The Geddes Committee, on the subject of personnel recommended great reductions by takingpro rata figures. They divided up the Navy into four groups: Group 1, fighting ships; Group 2, depot ships; Group 3, minelayers, and Group 4, minesweepers. It was said, because the Admiralty could make a certain reduction in Group 1 it could also makepro rata reductions in all the other groups. I cannot imagine a more fallacious way of arriving at the actually required strength of the personnel of the Navy. If there is one lesson which, among a great many, the Navy learned as a result of the recent War, it was this. Before the War there were practically no minelayers and no minefields. There were no sloops or gunboats. How possibly can you go back to the figures of 1914? You will have to revise the figures of 1914, but you cannot say that because it is possible in a particular branch of the Service to make a reduction on the figures for 1914, therefore you must make a proportionate reduction on the 1914 figures for the larger ships. I believe
the Admiralty maintain, and I think they are right in maintaining, that the Geddes Committee did not fully appreciate the position when they made that recommendation. It is true that they say that they took the Admiralty figures, but I think they did not consider them with a full understanding of what was involved. I consider that their recommendations with respect to reductions in the personnel of the Navy were fallacious, and that, if carried out, they would be dangerous. I hope the Admiralty will stick to their guns in this matter, and, while not shutting the door to further possible economies, will not economise on the lines recommended by the Geddes Committee.

Sir THOMAS BRAMSDON: I agree with a good deal that has fallen from the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea. (Viscount Curzon). With regard to the inducements offered to officers to retire from the Service, I agree that they are generally regarded as being favourable, and one hopes that they will be largely adopted, and that there will be a good number of retirements from the Service in consequence of the very excellent system which has been instituted. It is necessary, in the interests of the Service, and especially in the interests of the junior officers, that there should be that reduction which I am sure it is the desire and intention of the Admiralty to bring about. While, however, commissioned officers are induced to leave, officers who have been promoted from the lower deck are compelled to go on reaching the age, I think, of 50. Previously the age was 55, and these officers do feel it to be a little unfair that they should not be placed on the same basis as the commissioned officers. They think that if inducement is to be held out in the one case, it should be held out in the other; or if, on the other hand, there is compulsion to go in the one instance, the same thing should be applied in the other. What they fear is that, while the commissioned officers will be able to leave at their own will and pleasure—consistently, of course, with their having attained a certain age—so far as the others are concerned, notwithstanding that they may have gone through all their examinations, and are prepared to attain the promotion they have sought all their lives, they will be compelled to leave. My hon. Friend
may remember that on previous occasions I have done all I could to induce the Admiralty to bring forward some scheme by which these officers might be induced to go, and, therefore, I am glad that that has been done; but what they do not want is different treatment as between commissioned officers and those who have been promoted from the lower deck.
There is another matter about which I want to speak, namely, a new Order which has been issued by the Admiralty with reference to men who are on outlying stations, like the Cape of Good Hope, and so on. These men have had their period of service extended to 2½ or 3 years, and they feel it to be very unjust that they should be compelled to serve for these long periods abroad, seeing that the old period of service was two years. They ask me to represent their case to the Admiralty with a view to their being put on a different basis. They suggest that all those who are now-abroad on these far-distant stations should remain for the period which was in force when they were suit there; that, if any other alteration is made, it should be made on a new basis, such as that of volunteering; and that, if men are to be sent abroad for these long periods, they should at least understand before they go that they will be remaining for so long. I think these are very reasonable suggestions, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to bring about some alteration. There is one other point, and that is the old grievance which the men of the lower deck have in connection with railway allowance. The Admiralty have sent men from Portsmouth, Devonport and Chatham to take up their career at far-away stations like Port Edgar, and it is suggested that when men are sent to such far-distant places, and when they come home from there on leave, facilities for travelling should be afforded them. I know that my hon. Friend has done his best to induce the railway people to alter the present state of affairs, but the suggestion has been made to me from the lower deck, and I should be glad if the Admiralty could see their way to adopt it, that these men should be able to travel to and from places like Port Edgar by ship. Some shipping transport could probably be arranged, and, if so, it would be a welcome arrangement to many men who are serving on these far-distant stations.

Mr. L. MALONE: I am one of those Members who believe that drastic economies can still be effected at the Admiralty. I believe that the Geddes Committee pursued their deliberations in too hurried a manner when they investigated the expenditure at the Admiralty, and were too easily led aside by the experts and the Staff at the Admiralty. At the Admiralty to-day there are too many vested interests. There are too many highly-paid civil servants who have built up big, money-spending jobs which we have to tackle. I speak without any disrespect to the Parliamentary Secretary, who, I know, does his best, but I should like to sec the present Secretary of State for the Colonies back again at the Admiralty as First Lord, because I feel that he is the one man who is able to deal with these obstructionists in high and exalted places at the Admiralty. I should, however, be out of order if I pursued that now, and I will deal with it in greater detail on Vote 12.
I want, on this Vote, to ask one or two questions of the Parliamentary Secretary. If he will turn to the manning Table which is given in the Geddes Report, and which I assume is more or less up to date and accurate, he will find that an enormous proportion of officers and men are employed on shore and harbour work. I know that it is very difficult for the Admiralty to deal with the discharge of officers and men, and I do not wish to see officers and men put on the beach without adequate remuneration. It is not our business here to provide the policy for dealing with these people, but we have made suggestions from time to time that the Air Service should be developed, and so forth. What I want to criticise to-day is the employment of so large a number of officers and men on shore and harbour work. What are they? I find from this Table that 1,550 officers and 11,050 men are employed on harbour ships. What are those harbour ships? Are they training ships, or what are they? Then I find that 450 officers and 2,650 men are employed on coastguard service. Is it not time that we packed up this obsolete coastguard service? On what are these officers and men employed to-day? Are they employed on wireless duties, or on some other duties which cause them to be included in the table as coastguards; or are they still wandering from one station to another two or three times a
day, doing work of a kind that is already done by other Departments? Are they counting crab pots and lobster pots on the Hamble River, and performing the other duties which are performed by naval coastguards? Before the War a very good beginning was made in replacing the work of the coastguards by that of the Air Service, and I should like to see that further increased. It is obvious to-day that, if smuggling is done at all, it cannot be tackled by the coastguards. The man who wants to smuggle a few hundred pounds of tobacco into the country does not bring it in in a lugger on a dark night and land it off Plymouth; he brings it in on one of the biggest liners, disguised as luggage in a double bottom, or, still more likely, he brings it in by aeroplane. To-day, in 1922, to have these 450 officers and 2,650 men is an extravagance which is really not justified.
Then I should like to know what the item "Miscellaneous," under which there are 600 officers and 2,600 men, includes? Upon what duties are these men employed? If we add up all these figures, we find that, of 7,300 officers in the Navy, 3,900 are employed on shore and harbour duties, and that, of 78,150 men, 25,150 are employed on shore and harbour duties. That means that more than half the officers, and very much more than one-third of the men of the Navy are employed on services which are not warlike services. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies, will be able to explain this. In this same Table also, I find that, while we are economising in ships, the complements of the ships have been considerably increased. I want to draw attention in particular to the complements of battle ships, battle cruisers, and light cruisers. In 1915, we had 25 battleships, with an average- complement of 51 officers. Now, although we have cut down the number of ships, we find that the complement of officers, instead of being 51, is 68, and that the number of men, instead of being 725, is 1,190. Similarly, in the case of battle cruisers, the complement has risen from 50 officers to 67, and from 840 men to 1,320—nearly half as much again; while in the light cruiser, instead of 18 officers, there are now 29—very nearly double—and instead of 304 men there are now 440. I should like to know whether these complements are those which were found during the War
to be necessary owing to the increased number of officers and men required for fire control and so-called staff work, or whether they are the result of recent Admiralty decisions in order to justify—perhaps I might even say conceal—a certain number of the officers who are supernumerary. In conclusion, I should like to have the assurance that the decisions of the Geddes Report are not in any way restricting the flow of men from the lower deck into the ranks of officers. I believe, and I think it is widely felt throughout certain sections of the Navy, that the proportion of men who were to have been recruited in order to supplement the supply of officers in the Navy would have been much greater had the scheme of which we have heard been put forward. I believe that the Admiralty deliberately checked this advance of the men, and I need hardly point out what a bad effect that will have on the men in the Navy. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look into this matter and see whether the channels which used to be looked forward to with such great expectation and hope can be reopened to the men of the lower deck.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: I want to refer to a point which was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), namely, the number of cadets. This year's Estimate provides for 506 cadets. Is it likely that all these young officers will be absorbed and will get on in the Service? It there are too many of them, for Heaven's sake let us get rid of them while they are young and can be educated for some other profession.

Mr. AMERY: I should like to deal with the points which have been raised, and in begin with, as suggested by the right, hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), indicate the main lines on which our reduction shall proceed. The main economy on this Vote of £3,200,000 is, of course, only an instalment of the total economy we shall effect by our reductions. The Estimate for this year is naturally based on the average strength of the Navy during the year, and that average strength will be about 110,000 officers and men, as compared with 121,000
to-day. The figure to which we are coming down as early as possible in the year is 98,000, and next year Vote 1, and to a certain extent all the other Votes, will reflect the total economy of that reduction. My right hon. Friend also dealt with the question of the coastguard. That service, which costs £700,000 a year, is only to a very small extent a service required for naval purposes only. The Admiralty have made it quite clear that of the 2,800 officers and men of the coastguard only about 345 are actually required in peace time for strictly naval purposes. The others are required in the main for the purposes of the Customs and the Board of Trade, and we are now having a conference with the Customs and the Board of Trade in order to see, first of all, how it shall be made clear that this expenditure is not really naval expenditure but expenditure of other Departments, and, secondly, to find out how far, when that expenditure is being treated and regarded from the point of view of the other Departments, it is possible to economise considerably in the actual numbers of this force. The Committee is already sitting, and I hope it will not be long before we get a general decision which will both secure considerable economy on this Vote and also make it quite clear, whether the item continues to stand on the Naval Votes or not, that it represents expenditure which for the purposes of discipline may be put under the Navy, but which is really expenditure on other Departments.
To come to the method of reduction. We have reduced, in the first instance, two commands, which were necessary during the War but are not necessary in view of the present general situation—the Western Approaches and the Scottish Commands. While it is quite true that in the May Navy List, which was printed some time before, those officers are still shown as holding their positions, both appointments have now been terminated and they are not in existence at this moment. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether it was possible to carry out still further the recommendations of the Geddes Committee and reduce the commands or unify them under a single command. That would be quite impossible. It is not for the sake of honorific positions, but owing to the fact that we have certain great Naval bases and establishments we must have one senior officer,
with general control locally, at each of these bases. A central command would be a mere addition. The Admiralty already fulfil that function. Innumerable questions would arise. We find, as the Army and other organisations find, that a great aggregation like Portsmouth or Devonport wants a Commander-in-Chief on the spot.

Sir D. MACLEAN: How many were there before the War?

Mr. AMERY: Four, and they have now been reduced to four again. The right hon. Gentleman also raised the question of what are known in the Navy as retinues, which would probably not have attracted nearly as much attention from the Geddes Committee or the public if they had been called by any other name. The old historic word "retinue" includes all the officers and the ratings which, for one reason or another, are attached to the headquarter's staff of an admiral. Take the senior medical officer of a great base like Portsmouth. Whether there was an admiral in command or not, his function would necessarily continue, but he and all the junior officers attached to him—writers and all categories of people depending on him, right down to the whole of his staff, clerks, orderlies, and everything else—are included in the admiral's retinue. They are an essential element in the ordinary administrative naval work of the district. It would he perfectly easy to describe them as not attached to the admiral's staff, and in that case they would no longer appear in the figure of the retinue. Ever since last August we have been pressing the Commanders-in-Chief to see whether they can cut down any officers. Certain reductions have already been made, and we shall certainly keep close watch, and in any case where a staff of three can do the work of four, we shall certainly press that only three shall do it.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Are these staffs down to the pre-War standard?

Mr. AMERY: No, I could not give the detailed figure. In certain respects they are necessarily larger than they were before the War. Certain technical aspects have enormously increased. There is the multiplication of wireless and questions like paravanes, depth charges, anti-submarine work—all these
different aspects have increased. But I think I can say that in any Department that existed before the War there is not an increased staff for the same work which was done before. As to the scheme of reduction generally, the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) quite rightly said that what is essential is that we should so frame our reductions right through as not to interfere with the flow of promotion in future, so as to enable the Navy to be as efficient after these reductions as it is to-day, and it is from that point of view that the whole basis of surpluses in each category of officers and ratings has been worked out. My Noble Friend referred to the Flag List. The position as regards the Flag List is this: Before the War there were 95 officers on the Flag List, of whom three were supernumerary. During the War that number was considerably increased. Since then we have brought the figures down to 95, as before the War, but six of these are supernumerary, three being admirals of the Fleet—Jellicoc, Beatty and Wemyss—whose places will not be filled again, and we are now further reducing the total number to 83. Of those in active employment, we had 54 in March, 1914. That number is now reduced to 43, and we hope to reduce it by three more before the end of the calendar year.

Viscount CURZON: Are you still keeping an admiral in the Royal yacht?

Mr. AMERY: The appointment of the commander of the Royal yacht is one that is entirely personal to His Majesty, and the officer now in that command enjoys the full confidence of His Majesty and gives him satisfaction. I do not think the House of Commons should press that he should be removed from his position, even though a small saving might be effected. Generally speaking, we are pressing forward the reduction of the Flag List.
At the other end of the scale the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) raised the question of the number of boys in training and the cadets whom we are taking into the Navy. He took a figure as the number of boys in training which represents the maximum authorised figure of over 4,000. As a matter of fact, we have drastically reduced the numbers by not taking in more boys, and with the flow out the number now in training is 2,400.
The normal number which would be required in training to supply the normal needs of the Navy in future will be about 3,000, and as soon as the clearance has been effected we shall begin again to take in boys in order to meet the normal waste of the Service. The same is the position with regard to cadets. The total number of cadets in the training ship and at Dartmouth is 612, but by the end of the year, in consequence of the smaller number we are now taking in—an average of 50 a term at Dartmouth—the total number at Dartmouth will be down to 470, and the total number of those in the training ship will be down to 85, making a total of 555. Those numbers are rather less than will be required for normal entry into the Navy in future, allowing for the needs, not only of the executive branch, but of the engineering branch, and we shall undoubtedly have to ask for a rather larger number of the special entry cadets in favour of whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman has more than once spoken. My Noble Friend referred to the employment of an admiral in China. A very serious international crisis might arise at any moment there, as in the Near East, and it is important that the admiral there should carry the weight of a senior position. Also our admirals in those positions to-day are very much junior men to those who held the same positions before the War, and the distinguished admiral who is now going to take over the China Command is in every respect anything but an old gentleman. I think men who have risen to distinction in active service during the War are among the most effective for teaching young officers their work during the years immediately ahead.
The hon. Member for Central Portsmouth (Sir T. Bramsdon) suggested that we were making retirements in the case of officers promoted from the ranks compulsory and making it voluntary in the case of others. The position is this. Our scheme is one under which we are bound to reduce the excess in different categories. Wherever possible, whether in the case of officers promoted from the ranks or officers who come in as cadets, we are leaving it open for the time being for them to retire voluntarily in order to meet the very varied needs of individuals. The terms of retirement from the point of view of one officer may be very favourable—in fact, he
may have been hesitating about leaving the Service, anyhow. But the scheme is compulsory, all the same. If within the next few weeks officers do not take advantage of the opportunity of voluntary retirement, we shall inevitably be compelled to make selection, entirely from the point of view of the needs of the Service, from amongst officers whom we should, with the greatest regret, ask to leave, because, in the main, with very few exceptions, they will be officers of promise. There are very few in the Navy to-day whom we should like to lose.

Sir T. BRAMSDON: Why does the hon. Gentleman discriminate between the two classes?

Mr. AMERY: I was just coming to that point. I wish to make it quite clear that the Order dealing with the retirement of officers who, without having actually committed misconduct, are considered unfit for their position is certainly not going to be used in any way in order to bring about any of the reductions which we are considering at this moment. I do not suppose the number of officers who will be affected will be other than very small. To come back to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Portsmouth. In no case is the scheme other than compulsory, providing that voluntary retirements are not made, both in the cases of officers promoted from the ranks and of officers promoted from cadets. There are one or two categories of very deserving officers who have risen through distinguished service during the War but who, from age and other reasons, are surplus to the requirements of a very drastically reduced Navy, and it is only for that reason that we have had to notify them that, as a matter of fact, it will be necessary to retire them in any case.

Sir T. BRAMSDON: Surely the numbers of Flag and other officers who are surplus to the establishment are even more than those promoted from the lower deck.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. AMERY: I have dealt with the question of Flag officers. We do not wish in any way to inflict hardship, but from the point of view of the needs of the Service we cannot keep a large number of officers, either of flag rank or of lower ranks, for whom we cannot find any work. It is
only from that point of view that we have dealt with the question. The hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. L. Malone) raised another question. Undoubtedly the experience of the War showed us that on these great battleships there was need for a large number of additional officers and men to man the additional equipment. Great ships carried nine wireless sets compared with two before the War. The anti-aircraft equipment was a very small matter before the War, but it is now a very big thing, absorbing a large number of officers and men. There is the paravane service and so on. We had increased the complements very considerably at the end of the War on account of war experience; but since the Washington Conference, in view of the general relaxation of the position in the world, we have been carrying out a 16 per cent. reduction in all these complements, bringing us back to some thing like the pre-War complements. That is the peace reduction. If mobilisation was declared we should bring these men back from the schools and the training establishments in order to meet the active needs of the Service. I think I have covered the points raised in the discussion, and I hope the Committee will now let us have this Vote.

Sir G. COLLINS: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
The Parliamentary Secretary has informed the Committee that to-day there are 83 Flag officers in comparison with a total of 95 before the War. On page 34 of the Geddes Report the number of battleships and battle cruisers in 1914 is given as 68, and in 1922–23 only 29. If these figures are at all accurate, the reduction in the number of Flag officers has not kept pace with the reduction in the number of battleships and battle cruisers at sea. Several hon. Members have pointed out that through a large number of Flag officers to-day holding these appointments, promotion from the lower ranks is blocked. Hon. Members in all quarters of the Committee realise that to secure an efficient Navy you must give the lower ranks reasonable opportunity of securing Flag rank, if their efficiency entitles them to that position. If the Geddes figures are accurate, the Admiralty have not taken sufficient steps to induce the Flag officers, by one method or another, to retire, because the reduction is only 12, although the battleships
and battle cruisers at sea have been reduced from 68 to 29. The Parliamentary Secretary informed us that the two commands which the Geddes Committee recommended should be abolished have been discontinued.

Mr. AMERY: One was discontinued some little time ago, and the other a few days ago.

Sir G. COLLINS: As to the retinue or staff associated with these commands, will they automatically disappear?

Mr. AMERY: They have diminished very considerably. Of course, whatever junior appointment remains it will have some staff, but there is undoubtedly very considerable reduction.

Sir G. COLLINS: I understand that the numbers quoted on Page 45 of the Geddes Report as the retinue of the Commanders-in-Chief will not be completely reduced.

Mr. AMERY: Very largely reduced.

Sir G. COLLINS: We take exception to these staffs not being more radically reduced. The right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) read from the Geddes Report the judgment of the Committee on that point. It is quite clear that, although two commands have been abolished, the total staff in these two commands will not automatically disappear.

Mr. AMERY: In the case of the Western Approaches Command (Ireland) practically the whole has disappeared. In Scotland there is a reduced establishment at Rosyth, and a reduction of staff.

Sir G. COLLINS: There is a complete reduction in Ireland, and a very large reduction in Scotland. That leads me to ask what steps the Admiralty propose to take to reduce the size of the staffs in the other commands. We think them excessive, but as we cannot give a fair opinion in this respect, we can only rely upon those who have had experience of the Admiralty, and upon Lord Inchcape and others who have been closely associated with sea affairs, and when the members of the Geddes Committee report to the Government that in their opinion the size of these staffs is excessive, I hope the House will take note of that fact. This Vote raises also a very large question, and that is the numbers given in the
Navy Estimates compared with the figures recommended by the Geddes Committee. If the recommendations of that Committee had been accepted, this Vote would have been reduced by over £2,000,000 this year. The Geddes Committee recommended that the number of men should be reduced to 86,000, and the Parliamentary Secretary has informed us that the Admiralty are taking steps to reduce the total personnel to 98,000. The difference in numbers between 98,000 and 86,000 will cost the country this year over £2,000,000. I have

said enough to show that the advice of the Geddes Committee has been rejected by the Admiralty, that the staffs are excessive, that the number of flag officers does not correspond with the numbers of battleships and battle cruisers in commission, and as a protest against this I move to reduce the Vote by £100.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £12,925,900, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 72; Noes, 163.

Division No. 118.]
AYES.
[8.12 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hallas, Eldred
Poison, Sir Thomas A.


Ammon, Charles George
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Banton, George
Hartshorn, Vernon
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayday, Arthur
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Hayward, Evan
Robertson, John


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Royce, William Stapleton


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Bromfield, William
Hogge, James Myles
Spoor, B. G.


Cairns, John
Irving, Dan
Sutton, John Edward


Cape, Thomas
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Swan, J. E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Johnstone, Joseph
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. sir O. (Anglesey)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Kennedy, Thomas
Thorns, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Kenyon, Barnet
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Lawson, John James
Waterson, A. E.


Finney, Samuel
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Galbraith, Samuel
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Gillis, William
Maclean, Rt. Hon. sir D. (Midlothian)
Wignall, James


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Myers, Thomas



Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Major Barnes and Major McKenzie




Wood.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hailwood, Augustine


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Craik, Rt. Hon. sir Henry
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)


Barnston, Major Harry
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Hills, Major John Waller


Barrand, A. R.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S)
Hinds, John


Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hood, Sir Joseph


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C H. (Devizes)
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Edge, Captain Sir William
Hopkins, John W. W.


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Hudson, R. M.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Hurd, Percy A.


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Jephcott, A. R.


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Evans, Ernest
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George


Breese, Major Charles E.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Kidd, James


Briggs, Harold
Fell, Sir Arthur
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Brown, Major D. C.
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Larmor, Sir Joseph


Bruton, Sir James
Forrest, Walter
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Lister, Sir R. Ashton


Butcher, Sir John George
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.


Carew, Charles Robert S.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Lort-Williams, J.


Carr, W. Theodore
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lowe, Sir Francis William


Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)


Casey, T. W.
Gilbert, James Daniel
Lyle, C. E. Leonard


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Bim., W.)
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Goff, Sir R. Park
Manville, Edward


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Green, Albert (Derby)
Martin, A. E.


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Middlebrook, Sir William


Clough, Sir Robert
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar
Molson, Major John Elsdale


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Grenfell, E. C.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Nall, Major Joseph
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Neal, Arthur
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Rodger, A. K.
Tickler, Thomas George


Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Townley, Maximilian G.


Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Waddington, R.


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Seddon, J. A.
Wallace, J.


Pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Hacket
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Parker, James
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Perkins, Walter Frank
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Perring, William George
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)
Stanton, Charles Butt
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Pickering, Colonel Emil W.
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Stewart, Gershom
Wise, Frederick


Pratt, John William
Sturrock, J. Leng
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Sugden, W. H.
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Purchase, H. G.
Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Raeburn, Sir William H.
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)



Remer, J. R.
Taylor, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Renwick, Sir George
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Thomas, sir Robert J. (Wrexham)
McCurdy.


Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)



Original Question put, and agreed to.

It being a Quarter past Bight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

GRAMPIAN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL (by Order).

Order for Consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."

Mr. BRIGGS: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now" and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
It is only due to the House to explain why I am now opposing a Bill which I supported as a member of the Select Committee. My reason is that during the evidence there was a letter put in from the Trade Facilities Advisory Committee practically promising to guarantee some of the capital which was to be raised by the promoters. This letter was sprung upon the Select Committee as a perfectly new thing. This House had not had any opportunity to review this guarantee and therefore although I have no fault to find with the Bill I had every fault to find with this guarantee. I was told that while I objected to this in Committee I was not allowed to let my objections stand in the way of the Bill
on its merit. I must confess that owing to my ignorance as a young Member of the House I was rather put upon, if I may say so. If I knew then what I know now I would have made known my position to the Select Committee and objected to this Bill then. I realise that in coming as I do downstairs from a Select Committee and putting down a blocking Motion makes my position seem somewhat peculiar and therefore I feel that it is due to the House to explain why I have taken this course. While my action may surprise this House it is no surprise to the promoters of the Bill. At the end of our sittings I stated:
There is just one point which I have laboured and perhaps over laboured, while the Committee has been sitting, but I think that seeing that the letter from the Trade Facilities Committee was put in as evidence I am allowed to comment on it. If it had not been put in as evidence of course I perhaps could not have raised the point. As it was put in as evidence as a contemplated intention of the promoters to apply for this guarantee I feel myself at liberty to state that in my opinion this project while admirable in itself is of such a highly speculative nature that I do not consider for one moment that it is one in which Government money should be invested or guaranteed, which guarantee could only have one result, that the public would be led to put in their money under a false impression.
Therefore I in no way sprang a surprise on the promoters and they are in no way aggrieved by the position which I am now taking up in this House. I am aware that one hon. Member of the Select Committee differs from me, I do not know to what extent, in the view which I take, and I have been asked by other hon. Members from across the Border why they should set themselves out to prevent the flow of good English Treasury notes into Scot-
land. But I am convinced that when these hon. Members realise the circumstances in which this guarantee has been made, their purity of economic thought will show them that the material advantages to be gained under such a guarantee are not such as they as Scotch men from over the Border, tempted by this English gold, would wish to take. I have been asked also why I take exception to this particular instance of a guarantee, seeing that already the Trade Facilities Advisory Committee have already distributed guarantees to the extent of about £20,000,000 out of the £25,000,000 in their possession. I take exception to this particular guarantee because the Company's assets are not such as would warrant a State guarantee. If we take the other guarantees that have been made by this Advisory Committee we find that the concerns which have been guaranteeed are ail established businesses. Take, for example, the underground railways of London, who have received a guarantee of £5,000,000. If we could imagine such a thing as a liquidation of the underground railways, is there any hon. Member who would suggest that the company in liquidation would not be security for the £5,000,000 guarantee, but in this case of the Grampian Electricity Supply Company the assets are waterfalls and salmon fisheries. I suggest that they are assets comparable with the vast workless sheds of another well-known Government enterprise.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Will the hon. Gentleman quote some of the other instances—not only Metropolitan instances?

Mr. BRIGGS: I am sorry, but I have left the full list of them outside. If my hon. Friend wishes it, I will show it to him, and will show that there is a host of established concerns with considerable assets. An hon. Friend advises me that the South-Eastern Railway is one. I object to this Bill, combined with this guarantee, also because it is speculative in the highest possible degree. It is speculative because it has no customers in hand; it has no group of buyers of its power when that power has been produced. Although we put a question upstairs, the promoters were not able to suggest to us any definite arrangements
that have been made as to purchasers. There is an even more fatal objection. The promoters are given ten years to complete the scheme. It is a guarantee as to capital and as to interest on £2,000,000 worth of debentures. It must be evident to every hon. Member that a scheme of this sort—for the sake of argument I will assume that it is to be successful ultimately—cannot pay for some years. It cannot be profit-making until it is complete, or, at any rate, until it is very largely complete, and therefore it will be years and years before the scheme, under the most favourable conditions, can begin to make a profit, and for the whole of that time, under this guarantee, the State has to pay the interest on £2,000,000 of debentures. There is no question about that.
I take very strong objection to the guarantee, because it is the declared intention of the promoters to announce on their prospectus that this State guarantee exists. For what object? It can be with only one object—to bring in from the public money which the public would not invest otherwise. I am here, not to defend the investing capabilities of my hon. Friends, but, so far as I can, to defend the weaker people outside, who, when they see a prospectus with the State's name attached to it, do not examine it, but accept it as a State guarantee. Only the other day a clergy man, a very intimate friend of mine, to whom the saving of £100 is a serious effort of self-denial, said to me, "How is it that this investment, which I made purely because I thought the Government were behind it, is going down and down every day?" Those are the people whom I want to defend, and not hon. Members of this House. There is another point that has been raised by some of my hon. Friends opposite, who would otherwise give their support to my Amendment. That is that this Bill, at any rate, would provide useful labour. This Bill would provide useful labour only so far as the Government guarantee for £2,000,000 went. The guarantee, if it does not go into this sky-scraping object away in the Highlands, must go into industry where labour is at present. Are we to transpose labour from its present location in London or Birmingham or Manchester to the heart of the Highlands? I know the Highlands well and they would probably provide a pleasant
holiday. But there is a more serious matter than that. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, on the Second Reading of the Trade Facilities Bill, gave utterance to the following idealistic views as to how a Government should act with regard to State moneys. He said:
At the same time it is recognised—nay, indeed, it is claimed—naturally by a Treasury Minister, that in so vital a matter as the pledging of the nation's credit, it is impossible that the Treasury should demit ultimate responsibility, and it is impossible that this House should not hold the Treasury responsible to it for its action in such matter.
That justifies my action to-night. The Financial Secretary went on:
It will, therefore, be essential that the Treasury should remain ultimately responsible for the decisions of the Committee, and that in order to exercise that responsibility it should have power in law to withhold its consent, if need be, to any decision of the Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th October, 1921; col. 764, Vol. 147.]
My hon. Friend concluded:
Finally, I do not think it can be too clearly emphasised at this stage that only those concerned may hope successfully to obtain the guarantee who can demonstrate that without the guarantee they will not be able to get the money. All those concerned who can put their undertakings in hand without the assistance of this guarantee, and are able to do without such assistance, will not be able to get it."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th October, 1921; col. 767, Vol. 147.]
If the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is supporting this Bill, I think he must have forgotten those words. I would ask him, is he aware who are the promoters of this Bill? They are many of the banks of London, many of the financiers of London, every one of them men and institutions of such high standing and such immense resources that they would find £2,000,000 in two minutes if they desired to do so. Why do they not do so? Because they fear the risk that they are asking the Government to carry. I would like to prove to the House the spirit in which the promoters view this guarantee. The principal financial witness of the promoters, when before the Select Committee, agreed that the State had already committed itself to £25,000,000, and the only question was, who were to be the participators in that £25,000,000. Speaking for the promoters
of this concern, he agreed, "We may as well have our cut from the joint as anyone else." That is a very noble aspiration for a promoter of the strength and character of those men who are putting forward this Bill! It is because I am convinced of the justice of my objection to this guarantee that I oppose the Bill. If the Government or the promoters can see their way even now to withdraw from this guarantee or any guarantee in any form of State money, I, with the consent of my hon. Friend, would withdraw my Amendment. As a Member of this House I think it my duty to try and stop what I consider to be a misuse of public money.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to second the Amendment. It is almost without precedent that two members of a Select Committee should oppose their own Bill in this House, but it is almost without precedent that a Select Committee should sit upon a Bill the finance of which is very much influenced by a State guarantee, while at the same time it cannot discuss that guarantee. Our business upstairs was to discuss and prove the Bill. We could not deal with the guarantee which had been made before we met. I ask the House to consider that position. Here is a Committee selected to consider a Bill which—as the Minister of Transport had already pointed out—in one vital respect violated legislative requirements. The Committee has to take expert evidence bearing in various respects on the scheme proposed, but before the Committee meets and before the evidence is heard, in the face of the fact that the Bill itself violates in a fundamental manner legislative requirements in relation to the Ministry of Transport, the promoters of this company are handed a letter by the Trades Facilities Committee saying that that Committee is prepared to guarantee the company in respect of a Bill not yet proved by the Select Committee. It may he said that that was subject to the finding of the Select Committee, but I would ask the House to listen to the terms of the letter which was read before the Select Committee, and which had been given to this company before we met:

"20th April, 1922.

Gentlemen,—With reference to previous correspondence I am directed by the Trades Facilities Act Advisory Committee to state that they are anxious to encourage schemes such as yours, and subject to the approval
of the Electricity Commissioners to your scheme as a whole, including the technical details, plan of construction, public utility, and revenue earning prospects, they would be prepared to recommend a guarantee of a debenture issue equal to the paid up share capital. It is to be understood of course that the Committee cannot reserve any part of the £25,000,000 for this particular scheme, and the above is conditional on your formal application being received at a date when any of the above-named sum is stir available."

I thought it was essential that the House should know the character of the letter which was read to the Committee, which guaranteed State funds regardless of the decision of the representatives of this House, and which finally laid down conditions affecting the subject-matter of their investigations. The Mover of this Amendment has pointed out that the guarantee will have an effect in connection with the promoting of this company, and I believe it will. A Labour representative is not usually considered to be very careful of the interests of investors. I think no company ought to be dependent for its success on the influence which a State guarantee will give it with the investing public. There is not the slightest doubt about the effect which this will have upon investors, and sometimes little people will put their money into a company on the strength of the understanding that the Government is behind it, little knowing the serious character of the venture in which they may be taking part.

I would not for a moment say anything which would interfere with the success of this company which has a very laudable object, however little one may think of the possibility of its success. It is a very daring project. Let anyone consider the project, which is that of using the water power of the Highlands, at a point where, I think, the nearest town is about 41 miles away. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] A good deal of use was made of the fact that there was the possibility of attracting industry to this particular area. I think, under cross-examination, the promoters of the scheme practically dropped that suggestion. At any rate, the suggestion that there was the possibility of attracting an aluminium industry or something of that kind, was the furthest they would go. I understood when the Trades Facilities Act was before this House, that its object was to provide a, substitute for grants to local autho-
rities and bodies of that kind, which were giving work described as of a non-remunerative character. This was stated to be wasteful. We are not permitted now to discuss the Trades Facilities Act over again, but I think if the House had to discuss it again, a different point of view would be taken and more interest would be shown in it, than was shown originally. While I know I am not allowed to discuss that particular Act, may I express the opinion that money put into road-making for local authorities would be more remunerative than the State guarantee which it is proposed to give to this company. Therefore I second the Amendment, principally on the ground that I think the Trades Facilities Committee has pledged the finance of the country and violated the authority of the House by giving this letter to this particular body before the Select Committee met, and also because I think the guarantee will cover the real nature of the venture to the investing public, many of whom may be very humble people.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I must confess I feel in a somewhat embarrassing position, rising to speak as Chairman of the Select Committee to which this Bill was referred, immediately after two of my colleagues have taken the rather drastic course of moving the rejection of that Bill. Their arguments were not so much directed to the merits or demerits of the scheme contained in the Bill. They made a very natural use of the forms of the House to express their censure of the Treasury and the Government in regard to a letter which I agree with them in thinking was improper. I hope they will not press the opposition to the Bill, because I think that would be unfair to the promoters and the company, and to the object which those promoters have in view, namely, the supply and development of electricity, not from coal, which is being exhausted in this country, hut from a source which committee after committee which has sat upon the water power resources of this country has pointed out should be developed in the national interest. With the development—

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTONGRIFFITHS: I do not know whether it is put across the Floor of the House to me, but an hon. Member opposite rather insinuated that I was looking for a contract. Will he say if that is so or not?

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: I have nothing whatever to say on the matter. I was conducting a private conversation with my neighbour, and if the hon. and gallant Member opposite chooses to listen to a private conversation, he can do so.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: I will put the cap on your head outside, and let you have it.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I think we had better proceed with the discussion on the Bill.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I therefore hope the House will approach the consideration of this question on the merits of the actual proposal. I feel I am bound, as Chairman, to refer in the course of my remarks to the letter which has caused all the trouble, and I will do so later, but first let me point out, in answer to my two hon. Friends, that any scheme —I do not care where it is—for developing the water power of the Highlands must, on the face of it, appear of a somewhat speculative nature. There have hitherto been no available natural resources such as would be attractive to industry in that particular part of Scotland, and, undoubtedly, if you are to attract electrical and chemical industries and other modern industries to that part of the country, you have got to provide the power first. Power must precede the industry. That seems to me to be common-sense. I must confess that I regret the attitude taken up by the City of Dundee and other potential local consumers. When this Bill was originally before the House it was met with a great deal of opposition, and the promoters—wisely, I think—met that opposition by agreeing with the City of Dundee to a Clause which in effect cuts them out of supplying electricity to the industries of the City of Dundee, except with the consent of the corporation of that city, and it must be admitted that as the Bill now stands it would be extremely difficult for the promoters of this scheme, and of any other scheme for developing the water power of the Highlands of Scotland, to say, "We can show to Parliament that we have got this, that, and the other consumer ready to hand," but I am convinced that the water power which it is proposed to utilise in this scheme is considerable and useful, and, as far as I could gather by very close
cross-examination of the witnesses, it can be produced at a remarkably cheap rate.
After all, the particular scheme now under consideration of the House is the scheme which Sir John Snell, Chairman of the Water Power Resources Committee, placed first of all the schemes which they considered. Sir John Snell is head of the Electricity Commission which formerly went into this question, and I think there is no doubt that the centre of this scheme, which is Loch Ericht, is the finest existing natural reservoir for the development of water power. It is one of the highest lochs in Scotland, very long, very deep, and it has very steep sides, and by erecting dams at both ends it is possible, without inundating a large area of land or removing a single man, woman, or child, so to raise the level of Loch Ericht as to conserve and provide a source of water power second to none in the United Kingdom, I think my hon. Friends will agree that on its merits they agreed with me that they were bound to pass the preamble of the Bill and bound to suggest to Parliament that the scheme should be allowed to go forward; and if any water power—if I may express my humble judgment in this matter—is likely to prove successful in developing cheap electricity, this scheme is likely to be able to do it.
The other reason why the Committee agreed to pass the preamble of the Bill was the reason that all the petitions which were lodged against the Bill were either settled or withdrawn, and that is an important consideration to a Select Committee on a private Bill. I think, when I was first appointed to the Committee and I asked the clerk how many petitions there were against the Bill, he said,
I think there are 24 petitions, and the Solicit-or-General for Scotland is appearing against the Bill.
That was very formidable, but I am glad to say that, largely before we actually came to grips with the matter in Committee, a considerable number of the petitions were met by the promoters, and we were able amicably to adjust all the other petitions without any fighting. In particular, I would refer to the fact that both the Spey Fishery Board and the Tay Fishery Board were satisfied by the way in which they were met, and I would point out, in passing, that that is very significant, because Parliament
last year passed an Act, a somewhat similar Act, in connection with Loch Laggan, which permitted the diversion of some of the waters of the Spey into the Spean, and this Bill provides for a further diversion of the headwaters of the Spey tributaries into the Tay system. and in spite of that further diversion of the Spey waters into the Tay, the Spey Fishery Board are satisfied that their interests are not now in any way affected by this Bill.
We therefore come to the main responsibility which fell upon the Committee, after the withdrawal of all these petitions, and when the Bill practically became an unopposed Bill, namely, the financial question, and I must confess that I did consider the terms of the letter of the Trade Facilities Advisory Committee, written under the date it was written, when the Bill was an opposed Bill, to be a very extraordinary letter, of which Parliament ought to take cognisance. I want the House to realise, in ease of future legislation, what it means handing over to extra Parliamentary Committees of business men, who are not Members of Parliament, matters that are Parliamentary and statutory matters. In the first place, it has been the invariable custom of Parliament, in dealing with statutory companies, to limit the amount of debentures which may be issued, to a fixed relation to the ordinary share capital of a company, and it was formerly the practice of Parliament that a statutory company, requiring powers under a private Act of Parliament, should only be authorised by Parliament to issue debentures to the amount of one-third of the ordinary share capital. Getting more lax financially, this House went a little further, and allowed an issue of debentures equal to one-half of the ordinary share capital of a statutory company, and now, for the first time in this Bill, we, the Select Committee, had the ground cut from under our feet by a, Treasury Advisory Committee, who informed us that the Government were prepared to guarantee a debenture issue, not to one-half of the amount of the ordinary share capital of the company, but to the full amount of the ordinary share capital, and this Bill is constituting a new precedent, which, of course, will be quoted in the case of every other statutory company that will
come before Parliament in the future, and will affect the debenture issue of railway and other companies in the future to that extent.
9.0 P. M.
I do feel that for a Committee like the Trade Facilities Advisory Committee to make that precedent, and practically to force it upon Parliament, was very improper action indeed, and worthy of the censure of this House. It is not for me to attempt to justify the manner in which the Trade Facilities Advisory Committee are using £25,000,000 voted by this House. My hon. Friends have expressed their opinion, and it is for the Government and the Treasury, who are responsible for the disbursement of the £25,000,000, to make out their case upon this issue. As I have said, Parliament voted that £25,000,000, and, therefore, it was not for the Committee upstairs, in my opinion, to say whether this company, or any other company, should get their cut from the joint, and I think we were quite right in refraining from going into that question. But I would suggest to my hon. Friend who is representing the Treasury on the Government Bench tonight, that it would be advisable in future, before any guarantee of the taxpayers' money is given to a company such as this seeking powers from Parliament, that they should wait until the Committee stage of the, Bill has gone through, and we know where we are. It seems to me that the Trade Facilities Advisory Committee were wrong on the question of half as against the whole of the debenture issue, and wrong in regard to time, because when they wrote that letter on the 20th April, they did not even know what the capital of the company was going to be, and I think I ought to explain why I, in consultation with my colleagues, altered the figure in the Bill which is set down to he the ordinary capital of this company, and therefore regulates the amount of the State guarantee. When this Bill was before the Committee, the amount of capital set down in Clause 9, which was then Clause 8, was £1,000,000, that is to say, the State guarantee would have amounted under the letter of the Trade Facilities Advisory Committee to £1,000,000, the equivalent of the ordinary share capital. The Committee decided that the promoters of the Bill should be required to increase that, and I think I had better give the reason. The reason was that the
engineers who appeared on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, presented to us all their statistics regarding the cost of supplying electricity, the amount of electricity that they would supply, the prices they would have to charge consumers at varying distances, according to the load factor of any given consumer, and varying matters of that kind, on the basis that the two principal power-houses of the company would be constructed and worked together as part of a single scheme, namely, the power-house at the end of the Ericht and Loch Bannock, which really develops the power coming out of Loch Ericht, and the subsidiary power-house at the other end, which is known as the Dunalister or Tummel house.
On the engineering evidence, it was commercially sound in every way, and the Committee felt—and I think rightly felt—that it was no use doing a thing of this kind piecemeal, and starting the company with a small capital, so that the company would have to come to Parliament again to make a decent job. Therefore, we required, as a condition of passing the preamble of the Bill, that the capital of the company should be fixed at such an amount as would enable the two further parts of the scheme to be carried out without the company having to come to Parliament for further powers for raising capital. This is the amount which we require to be raised as ordinary share capital, before which the State guarantee does not begin to operate. We therefore increased the amount which the company is required to raise before the State guarantee becomes available from 1,000,000 to £1,750,000, and under the letter of the Trade Facilities Advisory Committee—which letter stands—the Committee is liable to produce another £1,750,000 guarantee. That explains the increase of the amount of capital. It is right, I think, that I should explain this point to the House in order to illustrate my point that in future the Trade Facilities Advisory Committee should not write letters of that kind until the matter has been thrashed out before the Select Committee, and until we know what the capital of the company is going to be, and what the undertaking that is passed by Parliament is going to be.
I therefore think that, as Chairman of this Committee, I should advise the House that, in my opinion, the scheme is
as good a scheme as is likely to be produced by any company or any promoters for the development of water power on the Highlands. I feel that the Preamble of the Bill to that extent has been proved. The private opposition to the Bill has been met, the petitioners have withdrawn, and it would be unfair to the promoters of this company, whose names you will find clearly set out in Clause 6 of the Bill, not to pass it. The names are: The Duke of Atholl, Sir Henry Babington Smith—who is well known as a distinguished ex-civil servant—Sir Austin Ed. Harris, Mr. James E. Cox, and Mr. J. W. B. Pease —and I may acid the name of Lord Revelstoke, who also handed in evidence in support of this company, the head of the firm of Barings. I think the House, after that, will not be justified, because of this most unfortunate letter, because of its terms and its time, in turning down the request—almost the right—of this company to be allowed to proceed with their scheme, which, I believe, will make for the development of the Highlands and the development of electrical supplies, which is much needed throughout this country. I therefore urge the House to reject the Amendment of my hon. Friends, while keeping a very careful eye in future on the administrative actions of the Trade Facilities Advisory Committee.

Mr. ADAMSON: The mistake in relation to the letter of the Trade Facilities Advisory Committee, to which attention has been drawn by my hon. Friends, should not, I think, lead us to turn our attention from the merits of the Measure before us to provide capital by which the promoters of this Bill are to bridle the water-power of some of the lakes and rivers in the Highlands of Scotland. Anyone acquainted with that portion of the Kingdom has, no doubt, at once in mind the fact that there is a very large amount of power running to waste there. I have on more than one occasion drawn the attention of the House to the advisability of endeavouring to lay hold on the power running to waste in the Highlands of Scotland and bridling it for use for commercial purposes. The Mover of the rejection of the Bill, in a very scornful way inquired what were the assets of this company, and said they were asking for money to
be invested in a few waterfalls! There are undoubtedly a few waterfalls concerned, but I would remind my hon. Friend that they are waterfalls of vast potentialities that can be bridled and made into commercial concerns. I think the House would be well-advised to very carefully consider a proposition of this kind. Hon. Members would be more usefully employed considering a proposition of this kind than we have been on many occasions in which much larger sums of money have been involved than in the present proposal. Millions of money have been spelt, in Persia, in Mesopotamia—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that this is not a Bill for bridling the waters of the Euphrates!

Mr. ADAMSON: I will not oppose your ruling, Sir. The object of this Bill is the development of our own country. That is one of the things that ought to have very careful consideration. Personally, I should have liked it if the Government themselves had undertaken the task of exploiting the water-power of this country. As a matter of fact on the former occasions to which I have drawn the attention of the House it was that the Government. should themselves undertake the task of developing and exploiting the natural resources of the country. While they have not seen their way to go the whole distance with me, I would yet remind the Mover and the Seconder of the Amendment that they have gone a considerable way. They at least have provided, according to figures quoted in the course of the discussion, a part of the capital asked for; and may I remind the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) that while providing it it is not the first time the Government have undertaken to raise half the capital of an industrial concern. We are reminded that in the case of the Persian Oil Company—

Mr. HOPKINSON: Yes, and Cellulose Company.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me. They took shares and were entitled to participate in the profits. This is merely a guarantee. This does not give the State a single farthing.

Mr. ADAMSON: Yes, and I deplore the fact that they do not provide the whole of the capital and exploit the concern themselves. It would have been much better if they had done that. At the same time they are providing a part of the money, and that is going a part of the way that I would have liked them to have gone. I am going to give this proposal very careful consideration before I follow my hon. Friend who moved its rejection into the Division Lobby. A short time ago we were considering the question of giving £25,000,000 to the Trade Facilities Advisory Committee for the purpose of stimulating industry in order that more employment might he found for our people. That, at any rate, is a merit which this Bill possesses, for it will undoubtedly provide a considerable amount of employment in a part of the country that has been very much neglected and where the provision of employment is badly needed. I think this Measure demands at our hands very careful consideration before we take the advice tendered by the Mover and Seconder of the rejection of this Bill. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) said this Measure is a daring project. I think it is, but I am convinced that its object has all the elements of success in it like the schemes undertaken by the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson) and the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. Gould) and other industrial magnates.

Mr. HOPKINSON: But we do not sponge on the taxpayer.

Mr. ADAMSON: If we begin to discuss this question from the point of view of sponging, I think we shall have a very interesting Debate, but I am afraid if we proceed along that line, Mr. Speaker will call us to order. Even if this company obtains these powers and gets the money promised by the Trade Facilities Advisory Committee, they will not be sponging upon the country. I think we ought to develop our own country. The proposal in this Bill is not sponging, and it is not wasting money. I am going to vote in favour of this Bill, and I hope a large majority of Members of this House will follow the same course, because here we have a. proposal which has in it all the elements for enabling us to begin with the development of our own country, and
I think we should adopt that policy before we spend money developing other countries.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: I should like the House to consider this point of view. The hon. Member who moved the rejection of this Measure did so, not upon the merits of the Bill, but because of an unfortunate letter which has "queered the pitch" and complicated matters. I think if it had not been for that letter my hon. Friend would never have moved the rejection of this Bill. I asked the principal witness on behalf of the promoters of this Bill whether they were prepared to go on with the Measure if they did not get this guarantee, and he said that they were, although they would much prefer having the guarantee. If the House rejects the Bill on the plea raised by my hon. Friend the result will be that the promoters will have no opportunity of proceeding with the Bill at all, because it will be lost. It would have been better if my hon. Friends had moved that the Government do not give this guarantee, and it is quite competent to move that the Trade Facilities Committee should not give this guarantee.

Mr. BRIGGS: There is no other way.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: If my hon. Friends persist in their Motion for the rejection of the Bill and the House approves, it means that this Bill and the expenses attaching to it will be lost for the time being and the promoters will have to proceed with a new Measure. I do not think there is anything wrong in the promoters approaching the Trade Facilities Committee. I am not so sure that there is so much in the letter which the Committee sent to the promoters because they safeguard the position all along. They say:
The Committee are anxious to encourage schemes such as yours, and subject to the approval of the Electricity Commissioners to your scheme as a whole, including technical details, plan of construction, public utility, and revenue earning prospects.
Therefore they are not granting this money of their own free will, and the Electricity Commissioners will have to approve of the technical details and the revenue earning prospects of the scheme. All these things are taken into consideration by the Advisory Committee, and when this scheme comes before them again they have not committed themselves
only under certain conditions. If the Committee are not satisfied with the revenue-earning prospects they can withhold their grant, and let the promoters proceed with their own resources. Let me bring this point again before the House. If you adopt this Motion the Bill is lost and the promoters will have no possible opportunity of proceeding with the Measure.
On this point let me supplement what was said by the Chairman of the Committee as regards the promoters. What the promoters proposed to do was to get powers to raise over £4,000,000, but they wanted to proceed in instalments, and the first instalment required was £1,000,000. The rest of the money they desired to get on a certificate of the Board of Trade, but we did not agree to that. We stipulated that they should complete the first stage of their scheme, the Loch Ericht, the Loch Bannock, and the Tummel, and complete the power stations in that portion of their scheme. The cost was divided into share capital of £1,750,000 and debentures of £875,000, making a total of £2,625,000. We said: "We will give you sanction to borrow an additional sum of £875,000, provided you get the consent of the Electricity Commissioners to borrow that amount." So the total sum they may raise ultimately for carrying forward this first part of the scheme amounts, in the maximum, to £3,500,000.
Let me say this about the scheme—I would like to give, the House a little information about it—all the information I have is what I gathered in the Committee; I had no knowledge of the scheme prior to that—it was brought out that the hydrographic system of the river Tay is by far the most important of all the river systems in Scotland. It covers an area of 2,510 square miles. The Tweed covers an area of 1,880 square miles; the Clyde of 1,590 square miles, and the Forth of 1,500 square miles. What it is proposed to do is to take one of the most likely schemes in the British Isles. That is borne out by the report of the Water Power Resources Committee. The whole of this area has been surveyed by an eminent Italian engineer. It is rather significant that an eminent Italian engineer, who could not speak a word of English, should come to Scotland and prepare a most valuable report upon the water resources of the North of Scotland.
He states that in this whole area there is an enormous potential water power, and that the ultimate cost of the complete scheme in the valley of the Tay, if carried out, would amount to nearly £20,000,000. What it is proposed to go on with is that portion of the scheme which will cost ultimately about £3,500,000. In no part of the British Isles is there a more abundant supply of water. Taking the matter as a whole, he says:
The scheme proposed constitutes one of the largest ever projected, nor are there any schemes or series of schemes in Europe"—
not in the British Isles only—
enjoying such favourable technical and economic advantages.
Let me say this, further. In this part of Scotland, which consists largely of deserted and uncultivated country-sides, the scheme would permit of works to be undertaken on a scale which might otherwise be prohibitive on account of the cost of the land. You have in this part of the British Isles a great rainfall, as heavy and as regular as in any district of Europe. The question of the rainfall is very important. It may be a very uncomfortable and disagreeable thing for those of us who have to live in those parts of Scotland, but in connection with a water power scheme of this kind it is of enormous advantage to have an abundant rainfall. The proximity of densely populated and industrial districts, together with easy means of communication, combine to make the conditions unique. May I say, in regard to what the right hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson) said, that the final Report of the Water Power Resources Committee was in favour of the State conserving its great water resources and of the State exploiting them, but I am afraid the time has gone past for the State to dabble with ventures of this kind, so it is left to public companies of this sort to promote this scheme. At the head of this company there are men of great experience, great knowledge, and great influence; and there are powerful corporations with immense resources. I think, on the whole, when you consider this scheme and its backing, the probabilities are that a most successful undertaking will be carried out to develop the
waste water power which, from the foundations of the world, has run to naught. The Water Power Resources Committee stated:
For the most part the potential water power resources which our inquiries in Great Britain have revealed, are situated in the Scottish Highlands, and the development of these resources might have profound effects on the life of this region. The Highlands are very sparsely populated and we understand that the generally prevailing low standard of comfort in the area is responsible for an abnormal amount of emigration which it is highly desirable to arrest.
One of the objects of the promoters is to attempt to re-populate the Highlands, and to bring industry to them. They may be able to sell electricity in bulk. They may be able to sell electricity in bulk to the works at Kinlochleven. They agree not to compete with the municipal authorities in Dundee, but there are other towns which may be largely developed if this cheap power, conserving our coal supply, which at present is running to waste, can be utilised, and it may transform the whole face of the countryside. The Report continues:
Generally speaking, the land is poor and affords little promise of agricultural development, there are few minerals of value, and apart from sheep-rearing and what agriculture is practiced, the population are dependent on the fishing industry, forestry and sport for a difficult existence. A main contributory factor to the emigration which takes place is the absence of social and domestic amenities.
It has been represented to us that the development of water powers in the Highlands would tend to stop the tide of emigration, and would actually lead to immigration of labour from the Lowlands, and that at least in some cases the growth of an industrial population would cause a demand for foodstuffs which would lead to an improvement in the pastoral agriculture of the adjoining area.
Then the Report goes on to deal with the conditions at Fort, William and Kinlochleven, where aluminium works are in operation just now. It says that in 1926 £170,000 was distributed in wages.
The company, when it is installed at Fort William"—
that is another company altogether—
will be able to give employment to from 2,000 to 3,000 men; and during the actual construction of the works a great many more men will be employed.
I think that that justifies the Trade Facilities Advisory Committee in giving its guarantee. Finally, the Water Power Re-
sources Committee summaries its Report as follows:
Considering broadly the results of our inquiries, we find that in Scotland, especially the Highlands, the natural conditions are such as to facilitate the production of power. In this area the bulk of the larger water powers of the British Isles is situated, and although it is remote from the present industrial centres, no part of it is far from the sea or the Caledonian Canal…
We consider that the utilisation of the water powers of the United Kingdom would tend to relieve the increasing congestion of our large centres of population, and in the case of the Highlands of Scotland would assist materially in improving the present low standard of comfort of the inhabitants of that area, and thus arresting the abnormal emigration from it.
I submit that there is a good case to attempt to carry out this great experiment in the Highlands. The chances are in favour of the proper construction of this great scheme, utilising water power which is now running to waste, without doing any harm to the fishing interest and without polluting the rivers. The water is to be returned to the stream, it is passed from power station to power station, and the fullest possible energy is taken out of it. Then, too, there is the coal saving which on a small part of the scheme represents about 200,000 tons per annum. There is also the prospect of the repopulation of the Highlands, and the bringing of industry there. I have in my hand a note in connection with the manufacture of aluminium in which it is stated that the trade with Germany during the last three years has quadrupled. In the year 1913 the total German imports were 200 tons. For the first three months of 1920 they were 75 tons; for the first three months of 1921 they were 116 tons; and in the first three months of 1922 they were 470 tons. There are possibilities there with this cheap power of establishing in this desolate deserted waste district in Scotland an industry that will utilise the population of the Highlands, bring prosperity to the Highlands, and establish on a firmer footing the manufacture of aluminium.
I say, therefore, that a good case has been made out for this Bill. I implore the House not to be led astray by what has been said against the action of the Trade Facilities Advisory Committee. That Committee saw fit to communicate with the promoters of the Bill and to give them an assurance that, provided certain conditions were fully fulfilled, and pro-
vided they were satisfied with all the details of the scheme, and that they had the recommendation of the Electricity Commissioners, they would give their sanction to guaranteeing the interest upon the debentures. Do not let us decide this question upon a question of prejudice against the action, whether foolish or otherwise, of the Advisory Committee. Let us deal with the scheme on its merits. The final point is this, that if we accept this Motion and reject this Bill, then the Bill is lost, the scheme is lost, and the promoters will have no choice but to go back. They are prepared to go forward without a guarantee, but they would much prefer to have the guarantee. I hope the House will hesitate before finally rejecting the Bill.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): This is a Private Bill. It is not introduced as of the nature of a Government Measure, and nothing could be further from the intentions of the Government than to take any step to make it a Government Measure by putting on Government Whips or doing anything of that sort. I most earnestly desire that, if possible, so extremely useful and promising a Measure may obtain its next stage in procedure to-night, and it is because I may possibly be able to do something to remove one of the principal obstacles in its path that I venture to trouble the House at this hour. I understand that the principal objection that has arisen is in connection with a letter written by the Advisory Committee. Let me remind the House that that letter was written on behalf of a Committee which is obviously a Committee of the Treasury. It consists of three gentlemen of unique experience in business matters. [An HON. MEMBER: "They have never been in this House!"] No, their experience is not in Parliament or in legal procedure. I should like to make it quite clear that that Committee, being an Advisory Committee responsible to the Treasury, full and absolute responsibility for any act of culpability on their part attaches to no one else than to Treasury Ministers.
These three gentlemen perform duties, day in and day out, at an immense cost of time and energy to themselves, and with the greatest possible profit and advantage to the State. They act within their instructions. They act under the
authority delegated to them, first. from this House to the Treasury and then from the Treasury to the Committee, so that if any blame there be for any act of theirs, that blame really falls entirely on the Treasury for not adequately and properly limiting their authority and their powers. Somewhat harsh language has been used about this letter. I cannot but think that the House will not regard it as necessary to use language more harsh than need be. It is, I believe, necessary to make it clear that in everything this Advisory Committee does, it always specifically and clearly tells those who go to it for help that they must have the necessary legal and Parliamentary authority. That is made perfectly clear to every applicant to the Committee for a guarantee.
I take it that the criticism that is expressed against this letter amounts to this: that in this particular letter no special reservation was made of the authority of the Committee. The House will, I am confident, allow me to assure it that nothing would be more startling—I might even say more shocking to the Members of the Committee—just as I admit I would be startled and shocked myself—than for it to be supposed that their action has been in the nature of a disregard of the authority of the Committee or of this House. I am perfectly certain the House will let me assure it that nothing could have been further from the intention of these three gentlemen. Let me suggest to the House this practical difficulty as regards the situation. In the nature of the case schemes which come to the Advisory Committee for their assistance and a guarantee, are schemes which without that guarantee could not come to birth, and if I may say so the hon. Member for East Renfrew (Mr. Johnstone), with whose observations I was in full agreement, certainly made something of an error in saying that the scheme could be proceeded with without The guarantee, because I am assured by the proceedings of the Advisory Committee that it could not proceed to a prosperous birth without the assistance of the guarantee. That being so, suppose that the scheme cannot come to birth without the assistance of the guarantee—

Mr. JOHNSTONE: I was not giving that as my own opinion. It was given in
answer to a question which I put to the principal promoter of the Bill, as to Whether the scheme could be proceeded with without the guarantee.

Mr. YOUNG: I am not, of course, aware of the conditions under which the question was asked, but the fact that, in the judgment of the Advisory Committee, the scheme was entitled to the guarantee, carries with it the absolute assurance that without the guarantee it could not proceed. The point I was about to make clear to the House is this. Since these are schemes which cannot hope to succeed without the guarantee, it must be obvious that there will be a great practical difficulty if some preliminary pronouncement from the Committee cannot be received before all the expense is incurred of launching the scheme as far as the undertaking of an inquiry before the Private Bill Committee. It would not be worth the promoters' while to incur all the expense of going so far as a Private Bill here, unless they can have some assurance that, if they are successful before the Private Bill Committee, the guarantee will afterwards be forthcoming.

Mr. BRIGGS: Surely they will not need that if the scheme is inherently sound?

Mr. YOUNG: I think the hon. Member has not fully appreciated the essential purpose of the Trade Facilities Act It is not to help schemes that can help themselves. Nothing would be more foolish, if I may say so, than to do that. It is to help often useful and promising schemes to get over the point which they cannot surmount without the help of the guarantee. I think the House will see that there is a real dilemma unless some preliminary inquiry by the Trade Facilities Advisory Committee can be undertaken before the expensive procedure is entered upon which culminates in a Private Bill Committee. I am deeply impressed by the suggestion that in any pronouncement from the Treasury—because such a letter is, indeed, a Treasury letter, for which the Advisory Committee must not be blamed—there should be any hint of disregard of the full and absolute power of the Private Bill Committee to try every case fully and completely on its merits. Nothing could be further from our intention than that any such indication of opinion by the Advisory Com-
mittee should in any way flout—I think that that was the horrifying word which was used—the authority of the Private Bill Committee. I think the hon. Member for East Renfrew really sees what must have been in the mind of the Advisory Committee. The House, I am sure, will realise that the point at which this Committee of business men conies into contact, in the case of such a Bill as this, with the proceedings in Parliament, is the Electricity Commission. The approval of the Electricity Commissioners is the preliminary stage leading up through the Ministry of Transport to the statement of opinion for the use of the Private Bill Committee. It is only when the step of the consideration of the Electricity Commissioners has been overcome that this long road which leads into the recesses of Westminster is seen to be clear. I am sure that in reserving the assent of the Electricity Commissioners it would be present to the mind of the Advisory Committee that they were really reserving the whole question of Parliamentary consent. For the future I give the House the assurance that it shall be made very clear that the result of any application to the Advisory Committee, and through them to the Treasury, which necessitates the assent of this House in any shape or form, would —as we, of course, know to be the case —only be, and can only be, subject wholly and absolutely to the consent and approval of this House.
Into the merits of this Bill I will not venture to go. It is not a matter for me to discuss. From the Treasury point of view, it is enough that the Advisory Committee, to whom the consideration of these matters has been delegated under an Act of Parliament, is in favour of the Bill, and that in the course of the ordinary procedure the merits of the Bill have been considered in detail. The merits of the Bill, as I understand the matter, apart from these questions as to the action of the Advisory Committee, really were not questioned before the Private Bill Committee. Some questions as to the merits of the Bill have been raised tonight in the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the opposition, but that may have been due rather to the emotions of the occasion than to a desire to bring that matter on to the Floor of the House. Another line of argument which very
naturally has occurred in the Debate is one which was really more relevant to the Second Reading of the Trade Facilities Bill. The question of policy was then decided by the House. Many of the criticisms that have been advanced against this Bill were really directed against the policy of the Trade. Facilities Act. This, if I may say so, is a typical case under the Trade Facilities Act. If the policy of that Measure has to be discussed, there are other and, no doubt, far more favourable opportunities for doing so. The whole administration of the Act can be discussed on those all too frequent occasions when the administration of the financial services of the country by the Treasury is under discussion, and the policy of the Act can also be discussed on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. So far as the particular merits of this Bill go, the matter is clear from the decision of the Committee. As far as this unfortunate stumbling block of the letter goes, I trust I have been able to do something to remove the obstacle to the Bill which lies on the path of the House. Finally, I certainly would say that, from the point of view of one who has watched the extremely assiduous and careful and cautious work of the Advisory Committee, I sincerely trust that every obstacle may be removed from the path of the Bill, the immediate effect of which will be to employ 3,000 men this year and 6,000 in the third year.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER CLAY: The Financial Secretary has certainly thrown oil on troubled waters, but I must say he has not made out a case on the question whether this Bill is economically sound or not. In fact, he appeared to have considerable doubt on that point. I was much interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), but until its concluding sentence I was not aware whether he was going to support the Bill or not. At any rate, he was not at all satisfied with the way in which the money was to be guaranteed by the State. I want to know whether the fact that this money is guaranteed by the State is going to appear on the prospectus of the company or not? It is all very well to say that the State under exceptional circumstances may dabble in possibly unprofitable enterprises, but are you going to allow the good name
of the State to attract the unwary who invest their money in a scheme which personally I believe to be economically unsound? That is the real point, and I do not think it has been touched upon by the supporters of the Measure. There has been a lot of talk about unemployment, and the hon. Gentleman has stated that this scheme will result in employing 3,000 men this year and 6,000 in the third year; but how are these people going to live at a height of 1,500 feet, and often higher, during the winter? Are houses going to be built for them? Is Government assistance by way of loan going to be given for the purpose of housing people at a height of 1,500 feet in the North of Scotland? It was pointed out, I think by the Seconder, that only a limited amount of money is available. Therefore bring the work to where there is a population that needs it instead of taking people up to what are very delightful places in summer, but are not such places as you would like to take working men from London, Manchester or Glasgow, on the Highlands of Scotland, during the winter months.
Allusion was made to aluminium, and an hon. Member appealed, owing to the imports of German aluminium goods, for cheap power which would enable us to compete. Why was not this credit facility given to the British Aluminium Company, which obtained a Bill last year for the Lochabar scheme, which was to provide cheap power for the British Aluminium Company. The difference between the two schemes is that in the case of the British Aluminium Company you have solid assets and here you have nothing—not even customers. I most strongly oppose it, not only from the point of Government credit but from other points of view, because I do no think the Bill is economically sound or will be of benefit in the end to the community as a whole. It is easy to talk about harnessing rivers. Harnessing one river is very different from harnessing a number of smaller rivers, including a large number of Scotch burns. It is far more expensive, and I am certain the promoters will have to come for more money. If the firms of the highest repute in the City which have been enumerated were to go to the money market and put their names to what they believed to he a sound scheme they would get the money
in five minutes, and the State would not be called upon to guarantee it. We have had some experience of dams for power and for irrigation, and I would remind hon. Members of what happened in the Blue Nile scheme and the amount of money which has had to be expended in trying to complete a scheme which was thought to be far cheaper than it turned out to be in the end.
10.0 P.M.
I should like to call attention to one or two Clauses of the Bill. I was rather struck with Clause 27 which says, rightly, that every effort shall he made to preserve the beauties of the district. I am sure the House will entirely agree with that, but in Sub-section (6) it says:
Provided always that no recommendations or orders made under this Section shall be of such a character as would be likely to imperil the financial success of the undertaking.
So far as preserving the beauties of the district is concerned the provision is not worth the paper it is written on. Again, Sub-section (7) says:
The company shall not exhibit or permit to be exhibited any advertisement other than advertisements relating to the undertaking.
That means that on every one of these steel girders which are to carry the electrical power you can have advertisements inviting companies to come to the Highlands to bring power into every home. You can have cheap power and cheap whiskey, and you can have the whole countryside decorated. There is not much safety there. I do not often find that Scotch lairds and riparian owners are caught napping in respect of their own business, and they can generally look after themselves pretty well. I think I know the district quite well. I have not been approached either by the Spey Fishery Board or the Tay Fishery Board in any way whatever, and I understand they are satisfied with the Bill. I was rather struck by a letter I saw the other day from a firm of agents in Perth. They were advising all their clients along the Tay that they should not object to the Bill because it had this advantage, that it took the water from the Spey. As far as the Spey is concerned, the promoters say, "Do not worry about the Bill, because you are being guaranteed a certain minimum flow, which will prevent the river running down too low."
Then when you examine the provisions themselves in Clause 43, it says, "So many million gallons must he allowed to go down the rivers Truim and Tromie before the power company can take any water at all, and at the end there is a penalty Clause which says that for every day in which the apparatus registering the amount of water that goes down is out of order the sum of £20 shall be paid to the Spey Fishery Board. But if you turn to Clause 12 you see that that again is not worth the paper it is written on, because it says that, supposing the company defaults in supplying power, as in a, dry summer it very likely will, every customer who has a contract with the company can claim for £10 a day for each particular work in which he is engaged and each enterprise may ask up to £500. Therefore, if they run short of water, naturally the companies will say, "We will forfeit the £20 a day to the Spey Fishery Board and will take the whole of the water of the rivers Truim and Tromie and try to avoid paying £10 a day to each customer along the river. There are provisions made forforce majeure, which, I think, excludes liability.Force majeure means, I suppose, an act of God, which I have heard described as an act which no reasonable person will believe God will perform. That is, I suppose, to provide a safeguard to the company as far as penalties are concerned.
I want to know where are the customers who are coming for this water power? We are told it is going to attract numbers of companies there, but I understand the whole of the horse power is only 56,000. There are some single generating stations in not very large towns in this country which have an equal amount of power to sell, and they have someone to sell it to, but in this Bill, as far as I can make out, there is no certain customer. You have in Clause 45 the counties of Perth, Kinross, and Forfar, and various parishes in the Highlands with a few houses in each, and you are going to supply power to places which are mere shooting boxes. It is too absurd to bring power up there. Even Perth and Dundee are excluded from the Bill, so that you have to rely on industries which may potentially be developed in the future owing to the presence of this power. As to customers themselves, there seems to be hardly
one, except shooting lodges and detached villages. There is even a provision to safeguard the Duke of Atholl, one of the promoters of the Bill, because Sub-section 1 of Clause 74 says the company shall not interfere with or object to the owner affording supplies of electricity from his own generating station at Blair Atholl or any other generating station he may have or may erect on premises on his estates. He is one of the promoters of the Measure, and yet he thinks so little of it that a special Clause is put in to protect him. This is a Measure which we ought to deal with on broad principle, and the broad principle is this, that by giving guarantees in a way like this we may attract the small investor to put his money into an uneconomic concern, and, therefore, cause him to lose it. That is the reason why I oppose the Bill.

Captain THORPE: Any temerity which I feel in addressing the House has been nullified by the effective speeches which have been made in favour of the Bill, and the apparent sterility of the speeches which have been made in opposition. It was a significant fact that the Mover and the Seconder of this postponing Amendment spoke, not with a Scottish accent, which might have charmed us even though the arguments had not convinced us, but with one voice from Manchester and the other from Chester-le-Street. Lest the economic pride which must always be associated with a Member for such a great industrial centre as Manchester should carry, in the speech of the Mover, more weight than is justified, I rise as a Member for the same city to differ with such emphasis as I can from the Mover of the Resolution. If I have followed the Debate correctly, it has been alleged that the real difficulty about this Bill is the fact that a letter has been written, with the authority of someone who had no right to give it, giving a guarantee which the Government had no right to give without the leave of this House. May I briefly allude to the terms of that letter. It says:
I am directed by the Trade Facilities Act Advisory Committee to state that they are anxious to encourage schemes such as yours"—
It does not say "to encourage your scheme," but "to encourage schemes such as yours."
and, subject to the approval of the Electricity Commissioners to your scheme as a whole, including technical details, plan of construction, public utility, and revenue earning prospects, they would be prepared to recommend.
That is not a guarantee. I appeal to the Committee to tell me what a letter of that nature would be worth in the city. What could business men collect on a guarantee of that nature? It is written with a legal ability which as a lawyer I cannot help admiring. It means nothing in £ s. d., and would be perfectly worthless in a Court of Law. That letter guarantees nobody anything. It is a conditional encouragement which has no worth. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury referred to the scheme as of prosperous birth. Perhaps he will allow me to adopt his simile and say that that letter has not even a reasonable conception.
The Mover of the Amendment did not attack the Trades Facilities Act. He could not do it. That is already the considered opinion of this House. He confined himself to attacking the particular Bill which we are considering. He forgot that it was owing to his own recommendation as a member of the Advisory Committee that a large number of us held our hands and did not oppose the Bill on its former introduction into the House. The hon. Member is reported as having said that the Grampian Electricity Supply Bill was an admirable project in itself. It was owing to that opinion from him that the opposition was withheld at a former period.

Mr. BRIGGS: That remark was made before the Select Committee.

Captain THORPE: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. From my point of view it is not material when the hon. Member made the remark, whether before or after the Select Committee. He is prepared to admit that at some period or another he gave his blessing to the scheme which he is to-night attacking. What has led to this still-born caution? What are the grounds on which he asks those whom he formerly convinced to change their whole views of the case and to follow him in his apostacy? May I briefly review those grounds? He condemns this Bill on the ground that it is of a speculative nature. I suppose by that he means that there is no guarantee
for those who invest their money that they will get a reasonable return. That sounds good business, but could the hon. Member commend any scheme in this country or in any country since the world began that could give a guarantee that it was not a speculative concern? If he could come down to this House and say that for every pound we put into some scheme we should get 20s. back in the course of years, we shall all retire from our labours in this worldly career. There is no scheme that is not speculative, and if it was not speculative, in my humble opinion nobody would put their money into it. [Laughter.] I am glad to be able to congratulate my hon. Friend, if I interpret his laughter correctly, on having discovered some commercial enterprise which he is prepared to guarantee. I hope he will give me the benefit of its name.
He went on to a second proposition. He said, apparently with conviction, that the test whether a scheme should be recommended to this House was whether it had assets which would guarantee the Government, in case of subsequent failure, the return of its money. That is not what the Act says. By giving that interpretation my hon. Friend has adopted a judicial position. He has given an interpretation of a legislative decision of this House, and he is not entitled to do it. May I assume for a moment that that is a correct proposition, and that this House is only entitled to guarantee schemes which in their judgment have assets available for subsequent remuneration or compensation. That only means one thing, and that is, that in the first place you must never subsidise any proposition which has not already got a large amount of capital invested in it, and that you must never subsidise any proposition that has not some natural gifts which will subsequently reimburse you. That is not in any sense the intention of the Act. The Act, if I may be so bold as to interpret the spirit of it, is for the purpose of encouraging or even beginning undertakings which, according to human probability, may promise prosperity and remuneration and, on the way, may guarantee employment.
My hon. Friend in moving the rejection of the Bill asked, with studied contempt, "What are the assets of this Highland
scheme?" He replied, with an assumption of contemptuousness: "Waterfalls and salmon fisheries." He has yet to learn that waterfalls are in fact among the greatest national assets that any country can possess. He has yet to travel to America and find that a great deal of American commercial stability is due to the fact that she can develop motive power at a minimum of expense and on a maximum of efficiency. He was followed by a representative of that distinguished party who sit on my right There it was difficult to catch the Scotch accent, but it was possible in the right hon. Gentleman who spoke later to discover a Scotchman who was in favour of this Bill, and it is a significant fact that the Scotch people as a body are in favour of this scheme. We have yet to learn that they are a bad business people. It is a significant fact that all the engineering experts have recommended that this scheme may be reasonably undertaken with every prospect, humanly speaking, of success. It is a significant fact that the bankers are prepared to back it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It is a remarkable fact that, the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. Briggs) in his first thoughts, which are always the best, was prepared to support it, and with what small capacity I have I ask the House not to consider a worthless letter which, if I may adopt the contemptible simile, is only a red herring, and not even good red, drawn across the merits of an excellent Bill which will produce employment and develop a barren part of the country in which at the moment there is nothing but sporting rights and desolation.

Colonel Sir A. SPROT: This Bill has for its object the utilisation of water power to generate electricity and thus bring great benefits to a part of the country with which I am very well acquainted. I have had the advantage of studying the detailed plans of this scheme upon the spot, and in my belief it will do a great deal of good in the way of economising coal and distributing industries over a large area along the route over which the electricity is to brought. Some speaker said that this sort of scheme ought to be confined to the great centres of population. I do not think so. I think that in the future we ought to endeavour to bring our people out of
these great towns, where they are so much overcrowded, and start industries in small towns and country districts where industries do not exist at present. One thing leads me to advocate this scheme—in which I have no financial interest whatever—from the patriotic point of view. We are very far behind other countries in this matter of generating electricity from water power. Allusion has been made to the fact that the chief engineer who reported on this scheme is an Italian. The fact is that in Italy they have got far ahead of us in this particular line long ago. Even in Spain, which we usually consider a backward country, they are far ahead of us in this matter of generating electricity by water power. I have seen the examples myself.
Some fourteen years ago I saw a scheme of bringing electricity from certain falls to the gold mines of Mysore, a distance of 60 or 70 miles. The electricity was brought through wires on poles which went for miles across the country. At that time, although that was a native state and the scheme had been carried out by a native prime minister, it was the biggest thing of the kind in the world. It has been superseded since. We are, therefore, very far behind in our country in this matter. We have heard to-night statements by hon. Members that this is the most promising scheme which can be projected with the British Isles. I think it would be a thousand pities if this House were to do anything towards rejecting the scheme. The only thing that is brought against it is the letter with regard to the Government guarantee. When I listened to the speech of the Mover of the Amendment I fancied I was listening to a Second Reading speech on the Trade Facilities Bill, which the House passed last year. I am not an advocate of State interference with industry. As a general rule I should oppose that sort of thing. But the Trade Facilities Act has been passed, and anything against guarantees of that sort ought to have been said while that Act was a Bill.
Is this scheme one under which a guarantee should be given in accordance with that Act? I have never heard what guarantees were given under that Act, but I read in the newspapers the other day that there was to be a guarantee of £3,000,000 to Portugal, to encourage trade between Portugal and this country, and I believe we have guaranteed the Under-
ground Railway of London and various Colonial schemes. I do not know of any scheme under which a guarantee is being given to my own country of Scotland. I do not see why we should not participate in the advantages, if there be any, of such a guarantee. Under the Trade Facilities Act it was proposed to give guarantees to those schemes which might be carried out in the course of years, the guarantee being required in order to make the proposers start their project at once and so relieve unemployment. That, I understand, is the distinction between a proposal which requires a guarantee and a proposal which does not require a guarantee. In the circumstances, I can see no harm it, the proposal to give a guarantee under this Bill. Therefore I give the Bill my most hearty support.

Mr. STURROCK: I rise, with the utmost possible pleasure to support the attitude towards the Bill of my hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken. There has been a great deal, not only of loose thought, but of still looser talk, about what is behind this Measure. My hon. Friend the Member for the Blackley Division of Manchester talked about Scotland desiring English gold. Why "English" gold? Hon. Members know very well that we send Scotsmen here in large numbers, in order to make gold for the English. Why, then, try to raise this racial distinction as to whose gold it is? I hope sincerely, when the discussions on the Bill are finished, some portion of it will most distinctly become Scottish gold. What has surprised me in this Debate is the extraordinary combination of forces arrayed against the Bill. We had the hon. Member for the Blackley Division, whom I take to be a fairly sound reactionary, opposing it on this side, and opposing it from those benches, the occupants of which purport to represent Labour, we had the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson). The case he made against the Bill was that this was a most ludicrous scheme because it was going to generate power in a part of the country where no industries have been established. He seemed to suggest that the power should be put into those areas where industry is thriving. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Fife (Sir A. Sprot) has alluded to that point. I should like
to meet the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street on that point on any platform in any industrial area. What is the substance of his argument? It is chat we should congest industry and employment into the very areas where at present there is hardly any decent air to breathe, where there are far too few houses, and where the conditions of life are wretched, dismal and miserable. In effect, he says: "For heaven's sake do not take the working people into the cleaner, brighter and more wholesome surroundings, but keep them in those surroundings which every political party agrees are not surroundings in which people ought to be kept, if it is possible to put them else where." I think the attitude of the right hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson) was much more to the point, and I was glad for once in a way to see one of the leaders of the Labour party who did himself justice, took his courage in both hands and administered a mild rebuke to the hon. Member behind him.
This Measure deserves support, and I think the sort of opposition which it has received is the best guarantee that we ought to allow the Bill to proceed. I emphatically say that if we pass the Bill, it is going to do a very great thing, not merely for the Highlands, but for many parts of the Lowlands. I listened to the criticisms of the hon. Member for Ton-bridge (Lieut.-Colonel Spender Clay), who made an interesting and entertaining speech, but left out of account the great fundamental purpose of such a proposal as this. The Government guarantee has been criticised, and that is perfectly legitimate. We are entitled to call in question the manner in which the Advisory Committee offered this sum, but that point has been adequately dealt with, and, to my mind, a guarantee of anything up to £2,000,000 is, in any case, perfectly justified. It is being offered to develop a great scheme which, undoubtedly, when in operation, will, sooner, I believe, than later, afford employment over wide tracts in our own land which suffer and have suffered increasingly since the War from depopulation. The other day this House passed with great enthusiasm a Measure for Empire settlement, involving great guarantees from the Government. Why should we not offer Imperial settlement at home as well as abroad? Why should the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury)
cavil at this financial transaction, if he is willing to go on to any platform in the country and advocate the spending of money on the development of the Empire? Let them begin by developing the Empire in the Highlands and the Lowlands of Scotland. I hope that the hon. Member and other hon. Members will join in supporting the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: If either the hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of the Bill or the hon. Gentleman who seconded it was in his place, I should venture to appeal to them not to put the House to the trouble of a Division. Most of the arguments adduced against the Bill have been dealt with by previous speakers, and the bogey of what may call the famous letter has been shattered. It has been pointed out by the hon. Member for the Blackley Division (Mr. Briggs) that he objected to the Bill because its passage involved, he said, a misuse of public money. What did he mean by that? It really means that the operation of the Trade Facilities Committee can be shot at only in respect of Bills which happen to come before this House. That is a very material point. There may be very serious objection on the part of some hon. Members to the activities of the Trade Facilities Committee. Objections have been raised on that score from all quarters of the House to-night, but when the hon. Member for the Blackley Division, who is not now in his place, cited a case which he considered to be a good case for the advance of public money by the Trade Facilities Committee, and that was the case of the Metropolitan railways, I asked if he would also give the House other instances in which that Committee had recommended schemes, and the hon. Member was not able to comply with my request. There may have been instances which, had they come before the House, the House would have considered unwise on the part of the Trade Facilities Committee, and therefore it comes to this, that this is not an occasion on which to criticise the operations of the Trade Facilities Committee, because it is only in respect of some Bills which come before this House that the operations of that Committee can be criticised, and I submit that that is a material point against the argument of the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill.
I am bound to say that the famous letter, when it was read out, did not make my flesh creep. It seems quite clear to me that the Committee, when it wrote that letter, had in mind—did not emphasise the fact, but had in mind—that the guarantee could not take effect until the Bill had passed through this House. They did not specifically draw attention to that fact, but it must be apparent to the simplest intelligence that, whatever the guarantee suggested by the Committee, it could not take effect until the House had given its approval to this Bill. The hon. and gallant Member for Ton-bridge (Lieut.-Colonel Spender Clay), and, indeed, the hon. Member who moved the rejection, objected to the probability that in the prospectus issued to the public the fact that this guarantee was to be given would be disclosed. I venture to ask this. If the gentlemen who are promoting this Bill do not in their prospectus disclose how part of their capital is to be raised, will they not be obtaining money under false pretences. The hon. Gentlemen who object to this Bill say that the public will be brought in and will be allowed to subscribe by reason and by virtue of the fact that the Trade Facilities Committee are guaranteeing a certain sum under the Bill. I say that it is imperative that they should disclose that fact, and I believe the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) will bear me out.

Sir F. BANBURY: No; certainly not. There is no reason why a company should say who is going to subscribe to its debenture stock unless it thinks that, by stating that the Government are going to guarantee the debenture stock, that will give an incentive to the investor to come in.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Assuming that the right hon. Gentleman is correct in what he says—

Sir F. BANBURY: I am.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: —and, of course, the House always listens to him with great respect on these matters, although I differ from him in this instance —but assuming he is correct, then I say this: There have been speeches made in this House to-night by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment and by the hon. and gallant Member for Tonbridge, and now an interpolation by the right
hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, of which the public outside will doubtless take note. The public always listens to the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir F. BANBURY: No; I wish they would.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: No one can say, after the Debate which has taken place in this House to-night, that the public are being asked to subscribe money under false pretences. On that matter, if there be a doubt in the minds of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, and others who disapprove of this Bill, let them print their speeches, and circulate those speeches throughout the country. Le them pay for their publication in the public Press. If they do that, I venture to say that that will remove any misconception on the part of the public, and, indeed, remove most of the arguments that have been adduced against this Bill. In view of all the arguments that have been submitted this evening in favour of this Bill, I hope the hon. Member who moved its rejection will withdraw his Amendment, and not put the House to the trouble of a division.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: During your absence from the Chair, Mr. Speaker, when Mr. Deputy-Speaker was in the Chair, I misinterpreted a whispered conversation more or less between my hon. Friend the Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Lieut. - Colonel Spender Clay), who has since left the House, and I made use, probably, of some silly observation across the floor of the House. It is my duty frankly to admit it, and apologise for what I said. I feel I was wrong, and frankly admit it. I may say that, until Friday, I had hardly any knowledge that this Bill was in existence. It was only on Friday that my attention was drawn to it, and I then took some interest in it, because, after travelling in distant countries, it is always present to my mind, on my return, that we seem to have made no effort in this country to try to utilise the water-power wherever it exists in Great Britain. It has been with me a constant tonic of conversation with those who are interested in industrial
concerns—which I am not—why they did not endeavour to cheapen the cost by ascertaining the possibility of harnessing the water-power in one part or other of the country.
This is one of the proposals that has been thoroughly investigated, and I have tried latterly to inquire into it, and I want to tell the House that I had no idea who were the directors until I heard the list read out by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore). What I did assume was that the Government would safeguard the public interest by being satisfied with the proceedings in Committee upstairs, and I assumed that evidence would be produced to this House that the scheme was a satisfactory one. Therefore in all the circumstances it seems to me I am justified in doing what I am going to do, support this Bill.
Hon. Members who preceded me spoke of the Government guaranteeing the principal and interest on the prospectus, but really there is not much in that point. I think I am right in saying that before any prospectus can be issued it will have to be submitted to the Treasury for their approval.

Mr. YOUNG: Before any prospectus is issued it will have to come before the Advisory Committee for their approval, but the final tribunal for this purpose is the Treasury.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: This point seems to have been taken outside, but I took it that the Treasury would have the final say as to whether they would or would not approve of the prospectus in relation to the Government guarantee.

Mr. YOUNG: indicated assent.

Sir J. NORTON GRIFFITHS: Then I think we will be safeguarded there. The question before the promoters seems to have been taking advantage of the Trades Facilities Act and the guarantees possible under it to accelerate the work with a view of helping forward the relief of unemployment. If the scheme be successful, it might very easily revolutionise the trade of the country. I appeal to hon. Members who have not had the opportunity of seeing the way in which water power has been developed in every country in the world except this, to give this Bill some encouragement.

Dr. MURRAY: I am not going to say anything about the details of this Bill, because the fact that the Committee were unanimous in recommending it is a sufficient guarantee to me in regard to a Measure of this kind, more especially coming from a body of hon. Members of that character. I also support this Measure on the broader issue, that is the necessity of creating some industry in the Highlands of Scotland, where depopulation has been going on for a generation. Even if the scheme does involve the spending of a little money, it would be beneficial in the future. The hon. Member for Tonbridge (Colonel Spender-Clay) said that working men from Manchester would not be tempted to go and live in the Highlands at a height of 1,500 feet, but, at any rate, the scheme would prevent men coming from the Highlands to Manchester and Glasgow and competing with them in the labour market. I think we ought to spend money as freely in developing the natural powers of this country as we are willing to do in Mesopotamia and other places abroad.

Mr. HOPKINSON: I wish, in the first instance, to withdraw as fully, I hope, and as sincerely as the hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir J. Norton-Griffiths) any remarks which passed between us earlier in the evening. Surely, however, the littlecontretemps between us shows the extreme danger of dallying with matters of this sort, and what was a perfectly innocent remark of mine, under the circumstances of a Bill of this sort being before this House was strongly resented by the hon. and gallant Member I would ask the House to consider whether it would not be wise to reject this Bill, on two grounds. In the first place, there is a financial objection, and, in the second place, there is a technical objection. I would remind hon. Members that this is not the first appearance of this scheme. The original scheme embraced a very large region of Scotland as the area of supply. With that large area it was quite possible that a financial success might have been made of the scheme, but opposition was raised by municipalities and other power companies, and the original area was reduced to a figure of about 25 per cent. of what it would formerly have been. All the richer parts of that area
were taken out of the scope of this proposal and given to other power companies.
Therefore, so far as the financial position is concerned, the whole of the gilt has been washed off the gingerbread. As a result of that, it would be impossible in the City of London to raise the necessary capital for carrying out this scheme. I would point out to the supporters of this proposal that the mere fact of the names of great bankers and financiers being behind the promoters of the Bill, does not prove in the very least that there is anything useful in the future of the company. Bankers do not put their names down for the promotion of Private Bills with any intention of holding the shares subsequently issued, but entirely in the ordinary course of their business of underwriting those shares and ultimately selling them to the public at a profit. Therefore, the mere fact that they are Concerned in this matter does not prove that this is a sound financial proposition.
I would touch upon the technical point. Of all the mare's nests and plausible ideas in engineering, probably waterpower schemes are the worst. It is extremely doubtful whether in the industrial parts of this country it is not more economical to transmit power by gas than by electricity. The thing is being fought out at present by eminent engineers, and it is a very doubtful point indeed whether, in a small radius, particularly of metallurgical industries, where there is great concentration, producer gas is not a much more economical method of transmission of power than water.
Attention has been called to the gigantic water power schemes abroad, but in every case these have been in countries where no coal supplies are available. It is no use drawing a parallel with Italy, where there is practically no coal at all, nor with Mysore, where, again, there is no coal nearer than Hyderabad. It is no use trying to parallel the case of Niagara Falls, or the great schemes of California, or Mexico, or of Central America. In every one of those schemes it is practically impossible to get coal near the place where the power is going to be used. In a country like this, where coal supplies are available, it is perfectly ludicrous to be going to the top of the Grampian Mountains to start power schemes there in the hope
that some business men will subsequently go out and start works. The finance of this scheme is entirely bad. It is perfectly easy for a Committee upstairs to come to a completely wrong judgment on technical points, particularly when there is no opposition to a Bill. If the expert evidence comes entirely from one side, and they have no opportunity of comparing it with expert evidence on the side of these who oppose the scheme, a non-technical Committee, knowing a good deal, it may be, about present-day politics are absolutely as wax in the hands of the experts in a case of this sort, and therefore it is unwise for any

one to come down to the House and say that, because the Committee was convinced of the technical and financial practicability of this scheme, therefore the House must agree to it without further discussion, I submit that technically the scheme is rotten, and as a. result of its technical rottenness its financial rottenness is all the more obvious. I appeal to the House to reject what in the City of London is termed more or less a ramp.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 185; Noes, 78.

Division No. 119.
AYES.
[10.59 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Gillis, William
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)


Ammon, Charles George
Glyn, Major Ralph
Naylor, Thomas Ellis


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Neal, Arthur


Baird, sir John Lawrence
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson


Banton, George
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Gregory, Holman
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Barlow, Sir Montague
Grenfell, E. C.
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parker, James


Barnston, Major Harry
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Grundy, T. W.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hallwood, Augustine
Perkins, Walter Frank


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Pratt, John William


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Hartshorn, Vernon
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Richardson, Sir Alex, (Gravesend)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hinds, John
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hirst, G. H.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Bromfield, William
Hope, Sir H.(Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn, W.)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Brown, Major D. C.
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Robertson, John


Bruton, Sir James
Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Cairns, John
Hudson, R. M.
Rodger, A. K.


Cape, Thomas
Hurd, Percy A.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Carr, W. Theodore
Irving, Dan
Royce, William Stapleton


Casey, T. W.
Jephcott, A. R.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Scott, sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Clough, Sir Robert
Kennedy, Thomas
Seddon, J. A.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kenyon, Barnet
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Cope, Major William
Kidd, James
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sitch, Charles H.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tlngd'n)
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Stewart, Gershom


Ednam, Viscount
Lunn, William
Sturrock, J. Leng


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.
Sugden, W. H.


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Sutherland, Sir William


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Sutton, John Edward


Elliot, Capt. Walter k. (Lanark)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Swan, J. E.


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D.(Midlothian)
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Evans, Ernest
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Taylor, J.


Fell, Sir Arthur
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Finney, Samuel
Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Manville, Edward
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Foot, Isaac
Mason, Robert
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Matthews, David
Tryon, Major George Clement


Forrest, Walter
Middlebrook, Sir William
Wallace, J.


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Frece, Sir Walter de
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
waiters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Murchison, C. K.
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Gee, Captain Robert
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)
Younger, Sir George


Wilson, James (Dudley)
Worsfold, T. Cato



Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES —


Windsor, viscount
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Mr. Ormsby - Gore and Mr.


Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)
Young, w. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)
Johnstone.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Renwick, Sir George


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Hills, Major John Waller
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


8enn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Stevens, Marshall


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Clay, Lieut-Colonel H. H. Spender
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Lindsay, William Arthur
Waddington, R.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Stale
Lort-Williams, J.
Wallace, J.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Waring, Major Walter


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Morrison, Hugh
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Myers, Thomas
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Fa[...]e, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Nall, Major Joseph
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Forestler-Walker, L.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Galbraith, Samuel
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wise, Frederick


Grant, James Augustus
Perring, William George
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)


Green, Albert (Derby)
Pickering, Colonel Emil W.
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Poison, Sir Thomas A.



Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Held, D. D.
Mr. Lawson and Mr. Brings.


Hayday, Arthur
Remer, J. R.



Question put, and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly; to be read the Third time.

SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee. Postponed Proceeding resumed.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1922–23.

NON-EFFECTIVE SERVICES (NAVAL AND MARINE), OFFICERS.

Question again proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £2,938,600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Officers, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, in addition to a sum of £668,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £12,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.

Viscount CURZON: I want to get back to the subject of peculiarity of temper. I had a reply from the Parliamentary Secretary, but he could not go sufficiently into detail, nor could I. I want to ask him why in this new Order you have a different wording from that which obtains in the Army. The Army have an Order to very much the same effect, but you have insti-
toted an Order which says you can retire an officer for peculiarity of temper. It has raised considerable uneasiness amongst all ranks of naval officers. They do not quite know what it means, and a clear explanation from the Government will do a lot of clearing up. This Order, I understand, was drawn up really in the interests of the naval officers. The Admiralty say, "It would be a pity to discharge him for misconduct when misconduct is not really alleged, therefore let its say peculiarity of temper. But there is already an Order in existence under which the Admiralty have only to allow an unsuitable officer to remain unemployed for a definite period, when he will automatically come to the end of his useful career, and after a period of full pay put on half-pay, and then has to retire automatically. Is that not a sufficient way of getting rid of an officer? Let him disappear automatically. There is nothing against him except that he is not employed, and he need not say why he is not employed. Now you are going to get rid of an officer for what you call peculiarity of temper. I am not at all sure that every member of the Treasury Bench would survive a similar ruling. Let me ask the hon. Gentleman to be quite explicit on this Order, because it is looked upon by the Navy as a most dangerous Order, and one which might be
used against an officer in the interests of the black hand. There is no appeal against this. The officer is simply informed that the Admiralty have no further use for his services owing to reasons of peculiarity of temper. Every Member of the Committee will realise that this is a dangerous Order, and requires more elucidation than the hon. Member has been able to give us.
With regard to the special retirement of naval officers, I agree with those who have spoken this afternoon. The Navy, on the whole, considers the present scheme for special retirement as generous, and all that they could possibly expect in the present financial state of the country; but I would ask the hon. Member not to forget the position of officers who went into the Navy 20 or 30 years ago with the idea that they had a life career before them. They have no prospects in the labour market. There is no occupation for them, no opportunity where they can say: "Here we can obtain employment." They have to go into the great field of unemployment. There are thousands of officers left over from the War who cannot get a job. These surplus officers will have only what the Admiralty have been generous enough to give them. In addition to the special remuneration given for the surrender of their prospects in life, could the Admiralty look into their conditions in civil life and help them to get a job? The influence of the Admiralty is great in all spheres. For instance, there is no hon. Member connected with commercial shipping who will not lend a ready ear when the Admiralty pleads the case of a naval officer, especially of senior rank, who has served the country for many years. Let the Admiralty bring all its influence to bear in shipping and commercial circles, and see whether suggestions might be made which might be all that is required to give employment to these officers. I do appeal to the Admiralty to bring all their influence to bear in aid of the naval officer who is now surplus to requirements. He may have a wife and small children, no private means, and his position may easily become desperate. The Admiralty do not want anything of this sort to be held up against them, because it would do great harm to recruiting for the Navy in future years.

Sir B. FALLE: I did not speak on the previous general Vote because I understood upon that Vote the Admiralty had no intention of discriminating between the ranker officer and his brother officer. There is discrimination, and the matter should be cleared up, because there is very considerable feeling in the Navy on the subject. Most naval officers recognise that the scheme of retirement is in many cases generous, but it is a fact that so far as the ranker officers are concerned the retirements are compulsory, while it is not so as regards their brother officers. Inducements are held out to the other officers to get them to retire. There are 1,835 officers who are surplus and liable to be retired.
It is a strange fact that 800 of those officers are ranker officers. This is a very large proportion. It will practically clear all the ward rooms of ranker officers. That is not looked on with favour by these gentlemen who after very long and meritorious service have been given commissioned rank. There are 139 lieutenants ex-mates and who have been promoted from the lower deck. They have to go. They are being retired by age and not by seniority, and they think that they should be retired by seniority and not by age.
Some examples have been sent me, but I will only give one. A man who was promoted mate in 1915 at 25 years of age and became lieutenant at 27, is now retired at the age of 32. He served during the War, and has been a commissioned officer since 1915. Another man who was promoted in 1917 from the ranks to mate, and in 1919 to full lieutenant is now 35 years of age. The man who held commissioned rank in 1915 is retired on £180. The man who got his commission in 1917 and is 35 years of age retires on £250 a year. The former does not see the reason. There is no reason why they should not have the same amount except that seniority is taken by age. There are some little difficulties in the interpretation of certain paragraphs. Perhaps I cannot read them as clearly as I should, but I have not been able to get these difficulties explained. In paragraph 38 it is stated that officers of warrant rank and lieutenants therefrom who are to be retired compulsorily will receive the rate of pay they would have received had they continued to the age of retirement. They are retired at the age
of 50. They must be 50 on the 1st of April, 1922. What is not mentioned is what happens if they are 47, 48 or 49. Can they retire as if they were 50 or must they wait until 50 and then be retired, not with the special rate now offered but with the ordinary rate? That is an exceedingly important point. Does this apply to those officers who, by dint of hard work and by passing some very stiff examinations recently, were given commissions as lieutenants? Are they to be retired at 50 on the terms offered now or to be retired at their present age with the, advantage which is given?

Viscount CURZON: The answer to that is in paragraph 39.

Sir B. FALLE: It is not clear that there is not some difficulty. All lieutenants of 35 are to be retired as if they were lieutenant-commanders on the pensions of lieutenant-commanders. It is not clear whether they are to have the rank of lieutenant-commander. That is the rank which many of them would have reached had they been allowed to continue serving to 55. Since they are to receive the pensions of lieutenant-commanders it would be an act of grace to give them the rank. Finally I want to know whether, when we arrive at the settlement of the post-War age, it is to be 50 or 55.

Mr. L. MALONE: I join with the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) in asking the Government to reconsider the Order as to retiring on account of temper. I would like a further assurance that this new Order is not to be used against officers for political purposes. In the past there have been cases of officers being retired because they have had political disagreements either with the policy of the Admiralty or the policy of the First Lord. That such a thing should happen is disgraceful. I wish to draw attention to page 185 of this Vote, and to the high rates of half-pay and unemployed pay which the people at the top of the tree are getting. Admirals of the Fleet are in receipt of £1,800 a year, and unemployed captains get £2 8s. a day. I ask my Labour Friends to notice the difference between these figures and the £1 3s. a week—and not every week—received by an unemployd workman with a wife and three children. In these times, when we are told to be patriot is and to put
our hands in our pockets, when the Government have no scruples in taking off the bonus of civil servants, no scruples in proposing that teachers' salaries of £200 should be reduced to £190, and no scruples in reducing the pensions of war heroes under the Royal Warrant, and when we may expect that the pensions of old age pensioners may be reduced, it seems to me that there is no reason at all why we should not press the Government to consider a reduction in the case of those whose pay or pension amounts to between £1,000 and £2,000 a year. Surely it might be proposed that in future cases some arrangement might be made whereby these very highly paid officers might have their pay reduced as the cost of living falls.

Sir G. COLLINS: The Noble Lord the Member for Battersea (Viscount Curzon) raised a point of interest to the Committee, in regard to officers who may be retired because of their character and conduct not finding favour with their commanding officer. Are the confidential reports concerning officers submitted to the officers themselves before being sent to headquarters? Will these officers have an opportunity of presenting their case to an independent tribunal? As the Committee knows, if an officer in the Navy loses his ship he is judged to be guilty until he proves his innocence. That, I understand, is the rule. I hope some assurance can be given that the cases of these particular officers will be investigated by an independent tribunal, and that judgment will not go against them merely because they differ as to opinion or conduct from their commanding officer. I do not rise to take exception to this Vote, but this I would say, that the longer the Admiralty delay facing the question of reductions the greater the hardship which will arise to the officers and men of the Navy. On a previous Vote, hon. Members pointed out that the number of boys had increased, and I think the number of naval cadets has also increased. The admission of more boys and more naval cadets will, in time, lead to great hardship to these particular individuals, because, undoubtedly, the numbers of officers and men in the Navy will be reduced. The longer the Admiralty delay facing the question the greater will be the hardship and the bigger will be the sum falling upon the
taxpayer, because every year an officer stays in the Navy adds to the gratuities. Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty inform the Committee whether the scales of gratuities under heading C are sufficient for the purpose of naval officers taking advantage of the rates which the Admiralty are offering? On page 276 of the Estimates I find mentioned a director of dockyards whose salary is under Vote 13, and in addition to his retired pay he is drawing, I understand, an extra remuneration of £895. We had occasion earlier in the day to take exception to the large number of flag officers on the active list to-day. This is another instance of an unnecessary officer drawing a large salary as well as retired pay.

Mr. AMERY: I should like to reply, first of all, to the point raised by my Noble Friend the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) and by the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) in regard to what has been described as the Order retiring officers for peculiarity of temper. That is not the object of the Order at all. The object of the Order is to enable the Admiralty to do what my Noble Friend said the War Office always have done, that is, to dispense with officers who are inefficient without assigning to them the stigma of misconduct. As a specific instance of what may be the reason for inefficiency, the Admiralty in that particular Order mentioned peculiarity of temper. This is only, however, as an instance of one of the things which might possibly cause inefficiency, and it certainly is not likely to apply to a man who is normally and reasonably efficient. My Noble Friend suggested there was no need for such an Order, in view of the fact that officers could always be got rid of by simply not employing them. The Admiralty felt, however, that it was fairer to an officer to let him know at once, and not to let him hang about for two or three years hoping he would be re-employed when all the time there was no intention of re-employing him. The hon. Member for Greenock asked a question in reference to the reports on the strength of which such an Order might possibly be enforced. The procedure of the Admiralty in such cases is this. If an officer is adversely reported upon by his captain, he is informed that there is such
an adverse report against him and warned of the general character of the deficiency which is attributed to him, and from that time on quarterly reports are made. If adverse reports still come to the Admiralty, the officer affected is not straightway judged, because it is always possible that an individual officer over him may, for one reason or another, be prejudiced. Instead, the officer reported adversely upon is transferred to another command, and a fresh chance is given to him to show whether or not he is a really satisfactory officer. It is only if there is a consensus of opinion of more than one commanding officer that an officer is thoroughly slack, or in one way or another inefficient, that then the matter comes before what as the highest tribunal in the Navy on such matters, namely, the full Board of Admiralty. The same procedure would then remain as in the case of a dismissal for misconduct, and the officer would get every opportunity in that respect of an officer who is charged with having committed misconduct. The conditions are, of course, entirely different from those of a case of running a ship aground, where the court-martial is really on detailed, ascertainable facts as to what a man did in particular circumstances. This is a question of a want of general efficiency, a question of inefficiency, on the part of an officer, and it could not be judged by an outside tribunal.

Viscount CURZON: This is a very important point in the Navy, and I shall be glad if the hon. Gentleman will illustrate it a little bit further. I believe the wording of the Order is different from that in the Order which obtains in the case of the Army, and I should like the hon. Gentleman to say why it was necessary to word the Order differently. I believe the words "peculiarity of temper" do not appear in the Army Order. Will the hon. Gentleman define a case of "peculiarity of temper"? Suppose an officer in the Navy, where they are not expected to exceed a monthly wine bill of £5, were persistently to exceed that amount, would he,ipso facto, be adjudged to be guilty of "peculiarity of temper"?

Mr. AMERY: As to the fact that the Order is somewhat differently worded from the corresponding Order in the Army, not having closely scrutinised the two Orders I really cannot say why
they differ, and I do not think the Admiralty took the War Office Order as a model to be followed exactly. As to "peculiarity of temper," anyone who has to deal with the Service knows there are some men whose manner or temper makes it impossible for them to work with others. supposing a captain invariably reported against every one of his commanders, and did not get on with them, the natural inference would be that that captain himself had a "peculiarity of temper." I should like, before leaving this point, to give the assurance, for which the hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. Malone) asked, that there is no question of using this Order for the compulsory elimination from the Navy of officers who differ in their political views, or in their views on naval strategical questions, from the High Command at the Admiralty.

Brigadier-General COCKERILL: May I ask whether the officer would be fully seised of all the circumstances of previous reports?

Mr. AMERY: I should think so, but I will certainly look into that. Coming to the question of the general scheme of reduction, I think it is generally admitted throughout the Service that, taking into account the very serious national financial circumstances, these terms of retirement have not only been fair, but generous. I think that is the general feeling of the Navy. I believe it is quite true that very few officers have voluntarily sent in their names as wishing to accept the offer. That is, I think, a tribute to the keenness of the officers to remain in the Service, but not a reflection on the want of generosity in the terms themselves. In settling these terms, we took into account all through the officer's legal claim and added to that an element of compensation for loss of career, loss of opportunities in civil life, such as my Noble Friend suggests, and, again, in cases where an officer was sure in a very few years to reach a certain appointment, we gave him compensation for the loss of full pay in the interval. There seems to be some confusion, not only in the minds of some members of the Committee, but in the Service, as to how far the system is compulsory and how far voluntary. The whole scheme is compulsory in this sense. We have to make certain reductions in the interest
of the Service., and we have gone right through the list in such a way as to secure the best continuity of promotion in the future. While realising that in certain categories a certain number of officers have got to be reduced, for a short period we make it open to the whole number of officers in that category to apply to be among those to be reduced. When you have got a Service in which practically they are all good officers, and it is very difficult to make a selection, it is not unfair to take account of the fact that where you have two officers of equal merit, enforced retirement may create hardship upon one and may be by no means an inconvenience to another. Therefore, we leave it open for a short time to those officers who would like to avail themselves of the opportunity to come forward voluntarily; but, in the last resort, if enough officers do not come forward, then the reductions will be enforced. From that point of view, the scheme applies on exactly the same principle to officers promoted from the ranks as to officers promoted from the cadet class. Where there is a surplus, then, in the first instance, there is an opportunity for voluntarily accepting the terms before the element of compulsion comes in, but there are two exceptions, and they arise from the circumstances of the Service. In view of the greatly reduced number of openings, with a reduced establishment for certain officers—lieut.-commanders and lieutenants, ex-warrant officers—and in order to prevent the blocking of promotion in future to men to rise to warrant officers, and to commissions from warrant officers, it has been decided to lower the age of retirement permanently in those categories. That means that officers over 50 will come under compulsory retirement. The only object of that, which also applies to a certain small number of officers specially promoted during the War, is to clear the lists and enable the flow of promotion from the ranks to continue again at the normal rate instead of being blocked for an almost indefinite number of years by the retention of a large number of officers at the top. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Portsmouth (Major Sir B. Falle) asked me a question concerning the case of six officers specially promoted, but I am afraid it is not clear to me under which of these paragraphs they
come. I will try to ascertain exactly who these six officers are, and whether they will come under the scheme.

Sir B. FALLE: They are six officers promoted after examination open to the whole Service, and in which were entered a considerable number of officers. The six were the only ones who succeeded in passing the examination. There was great delay in commissioning them. This was before my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was in office.

Mr. AMERY: I fancy the case of these officers will come under paragraph 39. If they are under 50 it will be open to them to take advantage of the terms of the voluntary retirement. If they do not, it will all depend upon how many of the others have taken advantage of the terms offered, and the number of the actual surplus, whether or not they will be reduced. As to other officers in these categories who are just under 50, the scheme is open to them. If they think they will benefit by coming under it, they would naturally apply to be released from service.

Viscount CURZON: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the compulsory retirement will begin—when the Admiralty staff have made up their minds—will it be in July or in August?

Mr. AMERY: That is made clear in the Admiralty Order itself. The scheme is open for six months. Before the end of that time the Admiralty will have to make a list of those who contemplate voluntary retirement, and these will go at the end of the six months. There is only one other point—as to our efforts to secure employment in civil life for the officers and men who are leaving the Service; what we are doing over and above the actual compensation given. We have set up an Advisory Committee of business men to give us what help they can in this matter. We are in the closest touch with the Oversea Settlement Committee in case there should be openings overseas either now or under the Empire Settlement Bill later for those who wish to take advantage of it. We shall use every endeavour to give such assistance as is possible to both officers and men to enable them to get a reason
able chance in their new life, with the help of the compensation given.

NON-EFFECTIVE SERVICES (NAVAL AND MARINE), MEN.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £4,499,600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Men, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, in addition to a sum of £1,023,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £12,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.— [Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

CONSTABULARY (IRELAND) [COMPENSATION].

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the disbandment of the Royal Irish Constabulary and with respect to magistrates appointed under the Acts relating to that force and for the validation of things done or omitted in the execution or purported execution of those Acts and for other purposes incidental thereto, it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament,—

(1) of compensation to officers and constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary who, since the twenty-fifth day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, have been, or who may hereafter be, required to retire or be discharged from that force, including compensation by way of disturbance allowances;
(2) of pensions and gratuities to the widows and children of such officers and constables; and
(3) of terminable annuities to the National Debt Commissioners in respect of the commutation of compensation allowances awarded to such officers and constables;

Provided that—
The amount of compensation, other than compensation by way of disturbance allowance, to such officers and constables and the pensions and gratuities to such widows and children shall be determined in accordance with
the Rules contained in the Ninth Schedule to the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, subject to the following amendments and modifications:—

(a) In these Rules any reference to the Lord Lieutenant shall be construed as a reference to the Treasury, and the expression 'existing enactments' shall be construed as meaning enactments in force at the time of the passing of the said Act of the present Session, and any Orders made under those enactments and in force at that time;
(b) The following proviso shall be added at the end of Rule 2:—

Provided that in the case of the surgeon of the Royal Irish Constabulary his compensation allowance may, should he so desire, be calculated in like manner as the pension which he would have been entitled to receive on retirement under the existing enactments applicable to him if the years to be added as aforesaid were added to his years of age instead of to his completed years of actual service;
(c)Rule 3 shall not apply;
(d) The following Rule shall be substituted for Rule 4:—

(4) The allowance awarded to an officer or constable shall in no case exceed two-thirds of the salary on which the allowance is calculated;
(e) The following words shall be added at the end of Rule 5. namely, 'and as if his years of service had been the years of service on which the allowance was calculated.'

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I have no desire to impede the progress of this Motion, but I should like to know whether the sum mentioned in this Money Resolution is provided for in the main Estimates, or if it will be necessary to introduce a Supplementary Estimate?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): As the Money Resolution stands the bulk of this sum will, of course, be provided in the main Estimates already on the Paper for the compensation allowances granted to the disbanded Royal Irish Constabu-
lary. As the Resolution has been read out, however, an Amendment is possible which may add a small sum in addition to a certain £300,000 now on the Paper as a special Estimate for what are known as disturbance allowances and exceptional cases.

Captain BENN: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for answering my question in passing. If that is so, it is our duty to point out to the Government that the sum provided in the Budget for the Supplementary Estimates is being very rapidly encroached upon. On the 2nd of May we were told that £25,000,000 —and the Government said it with emphasis—was a sufficient sum for the Supplementary Estimates for the year. By the 3rd of May we had Supplementary Estimates in prospect for £6,250,000. For the misconduct of the House in defeating the Government one night recently the Government have provided for another £600,000. To-night we have another Supplementary Estimate which will possibly amount to £300,000.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: That is not all contained in the Supplementary Estimate.

Captain BENN: But there will be a Supplementary Estimate. I desire to draw the attention of the House to the fact that something like £7,000,000 or more out of the £25,000,000 provided has gone in the first fortnight. All the criticisms which we ventured to offer, as to the insufficiency of the provision in the Budget, and as to the weak foundation of the hope which the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed as to the reliability of his figures, are being justified day by day.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope) adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Five Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.